Oklahoma Botched an Execution With Untested Lethal Injection Drugs

Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) writes "The state of Oklahoma had scheduled two executions for Tuesday, April 29th. This in spite of myriad objections that the drugs being used for both lethal injections had not been tested, and thus could violate the constitutional right to the courts, as well as the 8th Amendment: protection from cruel and unusual punishment. After much legal and political wrangling, the state proceeded with the executions anyway. It soon became clear that the critics' worst case scenarios were coming true — Oklahoma violently botched the first execution. The inmate "blew" a vein and had a heart attack. The state quickly postponed the second one. 'After weeks of Oklahoma refusing to disclose basic information about the drugs for tonight's lethal injection procedures, tonight, Clayton Lockett was tortured to death,' Madeline Cohen, the attorney of Charles Warner, the second man scheduled for execution, said in a statement. Katie Fretland at The Guardian reported from the scene of the botched attempt to execute Lockett using the untested, unvetted, and therefore potentially unconstitutional lethal injection drugs." sciencehabit also points out a study indicating that around 4% of death row inmates in the U.S. are likely innocent.

Comments

so?

[Anonymous Coward]

it was a nigger. who cares!

Re:so?

[Tukz]

You just went full retard.
Never go full retard.

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

better to be a retard than a fucking porch monkey.

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

You got that right!

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

>retard

I didn't realize this word was more acceptable in 2014.

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

The more you know, fucking faggot.

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about following your own advice?

4% is absurd even .000000001 is too much...

Re:so?

[drew_92123]

While I think your use of that word is deplorable, I have to agree, who gives a shit.

Giving criminals decades on death row with three meals a day and a promise of a painless death isn't exactly a deterrent to criminal behavior.

Feed the scum the cheapest dog food you can find and make the executions as long and as painful as possible, perhaps that will give these criminals a reason to rethink their lives?

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Naa, a shitskin will always be a shitskin. Call a spade a spade and be done with it..

Re:so?

[Arker]

The parent poster may or may not have intended it this way, but he actually brings up a good point.

If you commit a capital crime in the US, are tried and convicted for it, and your skin is black, you have a MUCH higher chance of actually being executed for it.

Frankly that fact alone should be enough to rule out capital punishment in the US for the foreseeable future.

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, it WAS enough to rule out capital punishment in the United States.. back in the 70's, when the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was being applied in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner because most death penalty states really had no standards as to the methods used. When the lethal injection got introduced and made more or less the standard, the Court ruled that the death penalty could once again be put into effect.

It has been argued (but not in front of the Supreme Court) since then that the racial inequalities on death row make the death penalty just as "arbitrary and capricious" as before the methods were standardized.

However, my state (Connecticut) recently banned the death penalty for everyone except people who were on death row before the ban was put into effect. Our last two major executions ("Mad Dog" Taborsky and Michael Ross) were both serial killers, and both white. Michael Ross actually gave up his appeals so that he could die faster. I'm not sure how many current death row inmates in CT aren't white, but I know the last two people added to it (Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevski) are both white. Of course, CT is a far cry from the southern states in terms of how often the death penalty has been applied historically.

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming that, statistically, African Americans statistically commit the same kinds of murders as others, but that's just not true if you look at actual data. The higher death penalty rate for African Americans results from a much higher rate at which African Americans commit the kinds of crimes that receive the death penalty. The reason is clearly not race per se, because there are many recent African immigrants for which none of these statistics hold.

Re:so?

[ichthus]

On what data are you basing your statement? I thought it was interesting, but wanted to verify. Google search: "statistics death row executions race"

First result:
Race of death row inmates executed since 1976 (US).

Comparing the percentage of executions by race to the population data shown lower on the page, I don't think your statement is correct. More whites are executed, but more blacks have pending executions.

Re:so?

[Arker]

"You're assuming that, statistically, African Americans statistically commit the same kinds of murders as others"

No, I am not. That is explicitly controlled for by only counting capital murder cases.

Re:so?

[nbauman]

Read that page again. The strongest documented discrimination is over the race of the victim:

White Defendant / Black Victim (20)
Black Defendant / White Victim (270)

A black person who kills a white person is far more likely to be prosecuted and sentenced to death than vice versa.

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that the stronger correlation isn't to the race of the accused, but rather to the race of the victim.

Re:so?

[maxlybbert]

This seems like an incomplete argument. If you're convicted of a crime and not given the death penalty, your prison sentence is likely to be much harsher if you're black than if your white. Should I support closing all prisons? If you're convicted of a crime and fined, you're much more likely to receive a larger fine if you're black than if you're white. Should I support abolishing all fines? It seems to me that it would be logical to support fixing the disparity.

Re:so?

[slinches]

Okay, and what are the total number of convictions for each of those specific types of crimes over the same time period? Those numbers need to be normalized to be comparable. That same page lists a much higher number of white victims than black ones, so it isn't clear whether the data supports your claim.

This site indicates that the rate of Black Defendant / White Victim homicides is ~3-4x of the reverse while the executions are >10x. That does seem to point to a racial bias in executions. Although, that covers all the way back to 1976 (and even earlier convictions). I wonder if those rates would tend to converge if we exclude older data?

Re:so?

[nbauman]

Baldus and Woodworth answered a lot of your questions. Case-controlled studies are never perfect, but they're the best evidence we have.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...

Two of the country's foremost researchers on race and capital punishment, law professor David Baldus and statistician George Woodworth, along with colleagues in Philadelphia, have conducted a careful analysis of race and the death penalty in Philadelphia which reveals that the odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly four times (3.9) higher if the defendant is black. These results were obtained after analyzing and controlling for case differences such as the severity of the crime and the background of the defendant. The data were subjected to various forms of analysis, but the conclusion was clear: blacks were being sentenced to death far in excess of other defendants for similar crimes....

Another measure of race's impact on the death penalty is the combined effect of the race of the defendant and the race of the victim. In the Philadelphia study, the racial combination which was most likely to result in a death sentence was a black defendant with a nonblack victim, regardless of how severe the murder committed. Black-on-black crimes were less likely to receive a death sentence, followed by crimes by other defendants, regardless of the race of their victims.

Re:so?

[HairyNevus]

Let me get this straight: using the word "retard" is deplorable, but inhumane treatment of prisoners is A-OK?

fullretard.jpg

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent poster may or may not have intended it this way, but he actually brings up a good point.

If you commit a capital crime in the US, are tried and convicted for it, and your skin is black, you have a MUCH higher chance of actually being executed for it.

Frankly that fact alone should be enough to rule out capital punishment in the US for the foreseeable future.

In the midst of this shitstorm, you pulled the racism card? Really? Is there NO conversation you agenda-pushers can't derail with your chosen brand of activism?

Re:so?

[Arker]

There is a big difference between life imprisonment and execution that you are missing.

With life imprisonment, it is at least possible for the system to realize a mistake has been made and partially rectify it. It actually happens shockingly often.

Once an execution has been carried out, however, we can no longer even partially rectify the error.

Absolutely we should support fixing the system more generally. But that should not stop us from also declaring a moratorium on capital punishment until that goal is accomplished.

Re:so?

[cyberchondriac]

Read that page again. The strongest documented discrimination is over the race of the victim:

White Defendant / Black Victim (20) Black Defendant / White Victim (270)

A black person who kills a white person is far more likely to be prosecuted and sentenced to death than vice versa.

Reread it again. That comparison is without relative context, they're not percentages: It's very possible that simply, more blacks are killing white people than white people are killing blacks, resulting in their higher percentage of interracial crime leading to higher instances of executions. The numbers given there do not state out of how many cases total there were, simply that more blacks were executed for killing whites than vice versa.

The solid statistic here is that 43.10% of deathrow inmates are whites, opposed to the lower percentage of 41.71% for blacks, which is contrary to everything you normally hear spouted on TV and newspapers.

Re:so?

[slinches]

Yup, it seems there's certainly some fairly good evidence to support race playing a significant role in death sentence rates.

I guess the question is now, how do we know when that disparity is fixed? Executions aren't such a common event that statistically significant data can be rapidly compiled (thankfully). And the overall statistics will be slow to change for the same reason. Since it seems you've looked into this more than I have, are there any studies that have looked at this while excluding convictions prior to different dates to see if a trend can be discerned? I would hope we've made some progress since the 70s on that.

Re:so?

[maxlybbert]

> There is a big difference between life imprisonment and execution that you are missing. No, I didn't miss that. That's what I meant by "incomplete." The original statement was this disparity "alone should be enough to rule out capital punishment in the US for the foreseeable future." But that statement missed pointing out why there should be a moratorium on executions compared to a moratorium on prison sentences and fines. It was incomplete.

Re: so?

[PatrickNarkinsky]

Except last i looked blacks are 12% of the population, which means the incidence is 4 times what we would expect all else bein equal.

Re:so?

[nbauman]

I could accept the death penalty if certain conditions are met. I'd have to be convinced that (1) The person was really guilty (2) He had a fair trial (3) Other people who committed the same crime also get the death penalty.

The problem here is (3). Black people are more likely to be executed when they kill a white person. I don't know if there's any current research. You'd need large numbers to break down an association by time series, and they may not have them. I doubt that the country is significantly less racist than it was 30 years ago.

I think that once we've established that there's so much discrimination in the death penalty, the process is hopelessly contaminated. Whenever a black person is executed, you can never be sure that a white person would be executed for the same crime. That violates basic fairness.

If a prosecutor wants to execute somebody, then he has to resolve every possible doubt. If the prosecutor can't eliminate the possibility that the death penalty was imposed because of racism, then he won't convince me it's appropriate.

There are other unfair disparities. The Mahmudiyah killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... of the rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the killing of her and her entire family, was about the worst of the worst. The soldiers most directly involved were sentenced to life terms, but none of them was executed. If we didn't execute the Mahmudiyah killers, I can't imagine how anyone could be executed.

Wealth is a disparity. Many millionaires have clearly committed murder, but no millionaire has ever been executed in the U.S.

Generally speaking, the people on death row have been convicted of horrible crimes. I do have some dostoyevskian sympathy for them, but I have much more sympathy for their victims. When I think of the crimes that Lockett and Warner in Oklahoma probably committed, their execution bothers me a lot less. When I think of the crimes the soldiers at Mahmudiyah committed, their execution would bother me a lot less too.

But you can't convince me that it's right to execute somebody because he's black when you don't execute somebody who committed an equally horrible crime because he's white. And that seems to be happening.

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we can't rectify the error of executing an innocent man.
But we can discourage and mitigate fast positives.
The solution is to execute the judge and prosecutor of any case that shows an innocent person was executed by the state.
I think there was Star Trek episode or well-knwn science fiction that advocated such an approach. Keeps the system honest.
They won't make the same mistake twice, and they're less likely to make it in the first place, because the consequences of doing so are critically personal.
Put some skin in the game - gives you pause for thought instead of letting your rage take control.

Re: so?

[cyberchondriac]

Why assume all else is equal? You refuse to acknowledge the possibility that more blacks kill whites than vice versa, regardless of population, because .. let me guess, that sounds racist? I'm just looking at the numbers. Think about how many of these murders are committed by gangs, like the Bloods and the Crips for example, or for that matter, MS-13, though that's latino. The vast majority of gang members are minorities. It's not an improbable scenario. Though they kill even more of themselves probably than non gang members.

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Baldus and Woodworth answered a lot of your questions. Case-controlled studies are never perfect, but they're the best evidence we have.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...

Two of the country's foremost researchers on race and capital punishment, law professor David Baldus and statistician George Woodworth, along with colleagues in Philadelphia, have conducted a careful analysis of race and the death penalty in Philadelphia which reveals that the odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly four times (3.9) higher if the defendant is black. These results were obtained after analyzing and controlling for case differences such as the severity of the crime and the background of the defendant. The data were subjected to various forms of analysis, but the conclusion was clear: blacks were being sentenced to death far in excess of other defendants for similar crimes....

Another measure of race's impact on the death penalty is the combined effect of the race of the defendant and the race of the victim. In the Philadelphia study, the racial combination which was most likely to result in a death sentence was a black defendant with a nonblack victim, regardless of how severe the murder committed. Black-on-black crimes were less likely to receive a death sentence, followed by crimes by other defendants, regardless of the race of their victims.

I guess that Americans are lower than savages. Savages rarely killed to defend themselves from the white men who stole their lands, white men who gave them alcohol, and stole their wives, white men who killed their children, white men who gave them diseases. Ever so rarely did they kill for revenge, but good Christian believers believe in revenge by death.

Re:so?

[slinches]

I wasn't trying to discuss whether the death penalty should be used or not, just whether it is being fairly implemented. And it appears that historically it has not been. That does raise the question of whether that problem continues today. If unfair sentencing is continuing or getting worse, we probably should suspend all executions until we can resolve the issue. But the data only indicates a historic issue, not necessarily a current, worsening, one.

I think this is one of the key disagreements:

I doubt that the country is significantly less racist than it was 30 years ago

In my opinion, societal attitudes toward race have changed a lot in the last 30 yrs. And those changes likely have some impact on the apparent racial discrimination in the application of capital punishment. To what extent? I have no idea, I can't find any data to (in)validate that hypothesis.

Re:so?

[nbauman]

I don't read all the studies, but I do notice a few of them.

The NAEP, which is the best data on educational achievement, found that the gap between black and white scores on reading and math are narrowing. I suppose that's an accomplishment.

But there's still a lot of racism. For example, in New York City, where I live, I followed the stop and frisk laws. There was detailed, convincing testimony in the court case, which the judge summarized in her opinion (which was a story on Slashdot).

Police used to stop men on the street, with no cause for arrest, and search them illegally. If the men protested, the police would rough them up and arrest them. The facts were clear. Cops got caught on tape. They were clearly targeting black men. They were giving black men misdemeanor convictions.

The final proof was that the Wall Street Journal editorial page had opinion pieces, many of them written by the Manhattan Institute, arguing that police should be stopping black men more often than white men, because black men were more often involved in crime. So there was open support for a deliberately racist policy.

And this is just my own personal experience, but last night I was in a fast-food diner in Times Square. A black man came in. A drunken white woman was sitting at a table, and when she saw the black man, she said, "You get out!" The counterman backed her up, and the black man left. It turned out that neither the woman nor the counterman had ever seen the black man before. This is in Manhattan in 2014. Sure she was drunk. But this is what black men have to put up with.

Re:so?

[Pseudonym]

The higher death penalty rate for African Americans results from a much higher rate at which African Americans commit the kinds of crimes that receive the death penalty.

Educated white sociopaths tend to become CEOs, who can kill hundreds or thousands at a time and get off scot free.

Re:so?

[RyoShin]

Something else I've wondered about is why, if we believe these people are the worst of the worst, we don't use them as case studies in psychoanalysis/physiology. Sure, few might be willing to participate (any number of offered privileges could be used as incentive, though), and even if they do it wouldn't be an ideal situation (if the examiner/pshrink could even be in the same room, they'd be surrounded by guards and/or council, likely), but they could so provide valuable insight into human development that might allow us to recognize these kind of people at an earlier stage and get them proper help.

Could well be that the people our society are so interested in killing are worth more to us alive than dead.

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big difference between life imprisonment and execution that you are missing.

Considering that guilty people often commit suicide to prevent themselves from facing life imprisonment, I'd say that's not as big a difference as you make it out to be.

What's the problem?

[DougOtto]

The inmate "blew" a vein and had a heart attack.

Sounds like it worked okay.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Not all heart attacks kill. Many induce absolutely tremendous levels of suffering.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

It took him 47 minutes to die and he was conscious.
Sounds fair to me, he raped and murdered an 11 MONTH old girl.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, I honestly fail to see the problem here, he's dead, so it worked.

Fuck this, I say just ask the guy how he prefers to die, no choice = 45 to the coconut.

This is a non-issue if I ever saw one.

BTW:

"Clayton Lockett told Neiman to get out of her pickup, and he shot her twice when she failed to give him her keys and the alarm code for the pickup, police were told.

Mathis told police he dug a grave for Neiman and buried her with Alfonzo Lockett's help.

The rape victim and Bornt told police they and Bornt's son then were brought back to Bornt's home.

The three men left in Bornt's pickup. The car Clayton Lockett drove to Perry apparently was stolen and was impounded by police when officers spotted it parked outside Bornt's duplex.

Jasper Lockett, 16, said his brother Alfonzo told him that Clayton Lockett threatened to kill him and Mathis if they went to police.

Police said Mathis and Alfonzo Lockett admitted they took part in the assault on Bornt and helped tie up the two women and drive them to rural Kay County.

Alfonzo Lockett showed authorities where Neiman was buried. Her mouth still was bound with duct tape, according to court records."

Painful agonizing death for this shitbird is a bonus here.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was executed, sounds like the drug work. He's dead, Taxpayers burden lifted keeping him alive and fed.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds fair to me, he raped and murdered an 11 MONTH old girl.

Not that the crime is entirely relevant to whether state executions should be okay or not, but you appear to suffer from reading comprehension issues. The crime you refer to was committed by the inmate who had their execution stayed after the first botched one.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

See this makes my whole week. Shitbag dirty criminal animal who rapes and murders multiple people gets "absolutely tremendous levels of suffering"

There is a huge grin on my face right now. Knowing it pisses you off even makes me happier.

Cool!

Capthca: Hilarity! Can you believe it! HAHAHAH Fuck off.,

Re:What's the problem?

[TheCarp]

I am actually mostly against the death penalty but I agree on this one. All this concern over suffering of someone you are planning to kill. It really strikes me as silly. If you really have the moral conviction to believe killing him is the right thing to do, then fucking grow some balls and do it. Shooting him in the head is many times more humane than this whole pseudomedical procedure of dressing it up.

If the people can't handle the blood shedding then they should admit they don't have the stomac for it and stop doing it; not try to dress it up and make it appear less barbaric.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, it sounded like it worked. Why do you care about the suffering of a murderer, anyway? A quick, painless death is getting off light for killing an innocent person.

If we didn't need to over-complicate the issue, which we don't, for the price of a box of bullets we could ensure the quick and painless death of these convicted murderers.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

How are we any better if we drop down to the same level?

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's this?

[holding right hand up with index finger and thumb fake playing worlds smallest violin]

Come on, what is it?

It's the worlds smallest violin.

Fuckwad.

Re:What's the problem?

[s.petry]

While funny, it distracts from several serious problems in the US.

First, why does the US still allow a death penalty? Surely there are some people with mental disorders that can not maintain a life with the rest of society, but this is what Prisons and mental health institutes are supposed to be for. We tend to argue how much a prisoner costs society, but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.

Next, and relates to the first is that the Prison systems in the US have become a for profit business. The privatization of prisons has caused countless issues. Such as contracts requiring a specific capacity at all times in prisons and the exploitation of prisoners. Laws have been passed to help keep prisons at capacity and nearly everyone in the US can commit several felonies every day without their knowledge. This means that we have people in prison that should probably not be there, and we lack the capacity to keep the really socially defunct people in jail.

We could discuss other issues, such as how rehabilitation in the US really does not exist and society lacks opportunity for people motivating people to illegal activities but can save that for later. We should address why the US has the highest percentage of people in prison in the world, and why we still have executions first.

Re:What's the problem?

[TheRaven64]

In that case, amend your constitution to say that it's fine to torture criminals once they've been convicted. If you're going to pretend to have the rule of law, then at least make a token effort to follow your own rules.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

These are all fair questions, but you have to understand that the death penalty is just that, a penalty. Many believe that the nature of the crime, the lack of potential for rehabilitation and other factors make execution the right thing to do. You may disagree with that, and in many states you are in the majority.

But not all of them. And this one is a states decision, as it should be. So vote your conscisnce or move.

Re: What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

He shot someone a help bury them alive. You are worried if he can be rehabilitated?

Re:What's the problem?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

After invading her home, Clayton Lockett bound his teenage victim with duct tape, beat her repeatedly, kidnapped her and drove her to dusty country road, forced her to watch while he dug a shallow grave, and laughed as he shot her twice with a shotgun.

Sounds like he got what he deserved. I don't see a problem. Karma is a bitch.

Re:What's the problem?

[kheldan]

The 'problem' is that in these United States, we want to maintain the fiction that we're civilized beings, and that translates into 'sanitizing' the process of ending the life of a violent criminal by injecting them with 'humane' substances that are lethal yet (allegedly) painless. While I'm not an advocate of bringing back hangings, or Texas' long-standing tradition of Old Sparky (electric chair, if someone actually doesn't know), an expertly-aimed round from a large-caliber rifle right between the eyes will end someone's life quickly and relatively painlessly, especially relatively-speaking in comparison to the pain and suffering some of these 'people' inflicted on their victims. Of course as previously stated that's way too much horror-show stuff for the general public to stomach, which is why we don't do it anymore. The general public just wants violent, death-row inmates to fade away, no screaming, no blood, no horror or discomfort of any kind.. really, execution by lethal injection is designed to be humane for everyone else, with it being humane to the criminal being executed just as a side benefit; it allows everyone left behind afterwards to feel like they're not as bad as the person who was just killed.

All that being said, and if they're so fucking concerned about 'being humane', then I don't know why the hell they don't just give criminals being executed a lethal dose of morphine and be done with it. Will kill them in short order, and they won't feel a damned thing on the way out.

Re:What's the problem?

[Travis Mansbridge]

Unless they happened to fall into that 4%. Then that murderer/rapist walks free while an innocent man is tortured to death for no reason.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Because, murderer or no, they are human beings? Nothing is actually gained through their suffering, besides pleasing the bloodthirsty.

Re:What's the problem?

[DougOtto]

Many induce absolutely tremendous levels of suffering.

We can hope.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Oh, right, I forgot how okay pointless suffering is if an anonymous poster on the internet says they don't mind. I can be so forgetful.

Re:What's the problem?

[pla]

This waste of oxygen rounded up two friends and went to beat up a guy who owed him a few bucks.
Girlfriend and another female friend just happen to drop by at the wrong moment.
Good round of beatings, all three wastes of oxygen rape the female friend.
He not-quite-fatally shoots the girlfriend twice. They fucking bury her alive.

Do you want to know exactly how bad I feel that this guy suffered for an hour?

Yes, we have some grey area in death penalty cases. This ain't one of them.


Oh, and if you want to really feel good about humanity today, the second execution that they stopped because of Lockett squirming a little? Raped and murdered an 11 month old baby. Real paragons of virtues, these guys.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, why does the US still allow a death penalty?

Because sometimes you have to put an animal down.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

4% I doubt

No system is perfect and clearly there are many things we could improve to reduce the error rate. I would be all for this.

But at some point society has to say, this is a crime and this is the guilty man.

The alternative says to the criminal that he is free to commit all manner of mayhem.

Are you somehow saying life imprisonment makes an erroneous conviction OK? That's absurd.

Let's be as certain as possible, one appeal. Then blammo.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Because the morally superior group that retains the right to judge this guy just loves suffering so much?

You know what I get out of a murderer suffering in agony? You know what amazing benefit society at large gains?
Nothing. Nothing at all.

Re:What's the problem?

[Mike Frett]

Did you witness the rape of the girl? You base all your information on evidence that may or may not be true. Completely innocent people have been known to have been executed and/or placed in Jail. The Legal system is FAR from perfect.

Nature has a way to give people what they deserve in the end. Murderers and Rapists etc. eventually get what they deserve, with or without the Legal System. Yes, even hateful, full of Rage people like you get what they deserve eventually.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

I'm not sure why your personal lack of concern is even relevant.

We've got a debate here that has two sides.
1. "We think there's a higher principal to uphold as a society"
2. *Comes in shouting about how little they care about the issue*

Re:What's the problem?

[ttucker]

It is easy to be cavalier until you consider yourself, or someone you care about, being innocent.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing of value is lost, either, by his suffering. Why should we care more about his life than he cared about his victims?

Re:What's the problem?

[ttucker]

Death row, appeals, and execution, are far more expensive for the taxpayer than lifetime imprisonment.

Re:What's the problem?

[Sique]

At some point the whole prosecution process is so convoluted and loaden with the egos of the prosecutors and the defense attorneys, plea bargains and with public opinions and botched investigations that the outcome of a process has nothing to do with penalizing the perpetrator, but with butchering a scapegoat.

At this point, the real question is: Why anyway?

And no, I definitely refuse any notion that at some point a conviction is final. It is always preliminary, as it is always possible that new evidence pops up.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't bother pretending you're any better than the scumbag you're killing if you're going to stoop to that level.

Personally, I think we should go back to the gas chamber. Pump it up and let them go to sleep and meet their fate. None of this having to come up with esoteric drugs because the shot we give dogs is "too good for them".

It'll never fly with the Republicans though, not violent enough to soothe their troubled souls.

Re:What's the problem?

[Wookact]

Because you are better then that? Don't stoop to their level. Do your dirty work and move on. Getting enjoyment out of it is macab, and disturbing.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Something of value is lost: we don't want executioners to get psychological rewards from executioning people. By turning death penalty into a circus, we entice psychopaths and sadists to apply for this job. As a society, we don't want to train the next generation of serial killers by giving them these kind of jobs. We want people that don't enjoy executions as executioners, hence why executions should be clean, fast and as boring as possible.

Re:What's the problem?

[NatasRevol]

What is gained? Less criminality in society.

That's the whole fucking point.

Re:What's the problem?

[pla]

First, why does the US still allow a death penalty?

Some people, you can't "rehabilitate". Some people (like Lockett), you don't even want to try. You just want them out of the picture. And put bluntly, life in prison costs too much - Scum like this doesn't deserve room, board, and free cable on the taxpayers' dime for life. They deserve...

Well, they deserve worse than he got, but we compromise with our squeamishness about actually giving his victims justice by trying to put them down more-or-less peacefully. Kinda ironic, actually, that Europe's refusal to sell us thiopental unintentionally caused Lockett to taste a tiny slice of actual justice .


Next, and relates to the first is that the Prison systems in the US have become a for profit business

Entirely separate issue. Yes, we have waaay too damned many people in a cage for nonviolent victimless offenses. Gleefully raping and murdering people doesn't compare well to getting high on the "wrong" intoxicants, however.


We tend to argue how much a prisoner costs society, but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.

Where does any moral dilemma come into the picture? Yes, Virginia, you can do things so bad that you effectively forfeit your right to basic human dignity, much less your life and comfort. Lockett did so.

Oklahoma killed a monster today. No moral issues apply.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not arguing that these animals didn't deserve it, but we as a society hold ourselves to higher values than using untested drugs for the hell of it.

We should be using a retooled gas chamber using nitrogen.

Those who seem to revel in the infliction of suffering, such as yourself, are mentally ill. You had no personal beef with these people, yet you seem to get off on their suffering. What's wrong with you? Kill them cleanly and be done with it.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Because we're not murderers? I mean. You're acknowledging it was immoral not to care when he did it. Why should we be immoral?

Re:What's the problem?

[flyingfsck]

Think of the victims. He still got off easy.

Anyhoo, I'm sure concerned volunteers a lining up around the block to help test a new killer concoction...

Re:What's the problem?

[NatasRevol]

Then maybe side #1 shouldn't use horrible humans like these to try to make their point. Very few people have the sympathy to care about vulgarity like them, and thus will not engage with side #1.

Re:What's the problem?

[johanw]

The US tortures even people who are NOT convicted, they are not much better than other dictatorships. The main difference between the US and other dictatorships is that in most others the people KNOW they live in an authoritarian state. US propaganda seems to be alomost as effective as the one in North Korea.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, murderer or no, they are human beings?

Depends on how loose your definition of human being is.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've already posted this in another thread, but what about inert gas asphyxiation via a retooled gas chamber? Nitrogen is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than cyanide, and we don't have to worry about executioners developing PTSD from killing people.

Re:What's the problem?

[wonkey_monkey]

Nature has a way to give people what they deserve in the end.

You can only mean death, since that's the only certainty.

Murderers and Rapists etc. eventually get what they deserve, with or without the Legal System.

In which case, we'll all eventually get what a murderer/rapist deserves.

I'm sorry to say it, but there are probably myriad rapists and murderers living happily into their 90s and passing away peacefully, surrounded by loving friends and family.

"Nature" doesn't give a shit.

Re:What's the problem?

[NatasRevol]

What's the difference between shooting a bullet in the head vs shooting killer drugs into the veins?

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course I do consider that. I repeat, no system is perfect. There is far far more chance that someone who murders me or my family is brought to justice and put to death than the chance I or someone I love is wrongfully punished as you describe. Far greater.

Yes, I can live with that.

Re:What's the problem?

[johanw]

Because the war on drugs mob will claim they'll get addicted.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to throw ethics out the window, then I'll argue that nothing has value. Once you remove ethics, anything becomes fair game as long as your goal is met. The Earth is over populated, lets go in a murder spree. Logical, yes, ethical, no. Ethics is important.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Yep, life sure is easy when you can just classify people into groups that "count" and those that don't. You know who else killed people they found subhuman?

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ok. Don't let it happen again.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Except that's an undemonstrated assertion. I'd be happy to accept it, if the conclusion followed from the premise.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

But if they truly don't care, the words they use, they also shouldn't explicitly want suffering, right? It's a thin veneer, hiding the fact that there's a thick layer of sadistic glee there.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you 12? Do you think all Republicans have fangs, sleep in coffins and drink blood?

Boo!

Fuckwad.

Re:What's the problem?

[pla]

We've got a debate here that has two sides. 1. "We think there's a higher principal to uphold as a society" 2. *Comes in shouting about how little they care about the issue*

Although we have a lot more than two sides here, I have to point out that "not caring" very neatly does take a contrary stance to some crap about applying higher principals to the dispatching of rabid dogs. Some would take the stance that we shouldn't kill people, period; others completely disregard that as a baseless stance.

That said, I most assuredly didn't say I don't care about the issue. I consider this "accidental" suffering nothing short of karma injecting a tiny slice of justice back into this particular case.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is gained? Less criminality in society.

In other words, having torturous executions reduces crime. I'm sorry, but citation needed.

Re:What's the problem?

[NatasRevol]

Well, in theory it is.

But when the elected morons criminalize everything, it's not quite the case anymore.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you care about the suffering of a murderer, anyway?

Because, murderer or no, they are human beings?

First, once convicted, there is no question as to whether or not they are a murderer. They are, at that point.

Second, being a human being doesn't give you warrant to hurt and kill innocent people. If you hurt or kill someone, you deserve to be hurt or killed yourself. That's how true and equal justice works.

Nothing is actually gained through their suffering, besides pleasing the bloodthirsty.

Wrong, again. What is gained is justice and a deterrence to future criminals. I would argue that we would have far fewer murders and far fewer crimes overall, if we exacted the same punishment upon the guilty as they have exacted on their innocent victims.

As it stands, a killer could torture someone for years before killing them, only to be punished through life imprisonment, where their life is spared, or through a quick and painless death. The torturing killer might think twice if the consequence of their action was to be tortured and killed.

Re:What's the problem?

[NatasRevol]

That's my point. Make it a case where there isn't such (rightfully?) sadistic glee.

Otherwise, most people can't get past the horrible actions of people like this.

Re:What's the problem?

[jthill]

Of course, the defining characteristic of his depravity was his lack of empathy for others, his willingness to see them die horribly. It's what made him less than acceptable as a human. Go feel self-righteous all you want, history's got a long, long track record on people and cultures who punish brutally. Vengeance or justice, the motive doesn't lessen the act's effect. Doing things like that turns people into beasts. Your rage should worry you.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Yeah, yeah. Pretending I'm endorsing the murder of one person because I don't support the torture of another.

Great. That's extraordinarily dishonest and you should feel bad.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we have some grey area in death penalty cases. This ain't one of them.

Oh, well, then that totally makes it ok. I mean, it isn't like the government encroaches on our rights by first putting them to the test against the scummiest of scum.

Oh wait...

Re:What's the problem?

[wonkey_monkey]

Sounds like he got what he deserved.

In a karmic sense, perhaps so. But I wouldn't say that then means it'd be right for society to dish out such torturous punishment regularly and deliberately.

Re:What's the problem?

[coinreturn]

You know what I get out of a murderer suffering in agony? You know what amazing benefit society at large gains? Nothing. Nothing at all.

Maybe if they filmed it and put it on youtube, society would at least gain some entertainment value.

Re:What's the problem?

[wonkey_monkey]

I don't know why the hell they don't just give criminals being executed a lethal dose of morphine

http://www.lists.opn.org/piper...

toxic doses can cause distressing agitation

and possibly vomitting, according to one uncited quote I stumbled across, although I'm not sure whether it's subject or observer that would be more distressed by this.

Nitrogen narcosis is another alternative that often comes up, but then some people complain that it's too pleasant.

Re:What's the problem?

[TheP4st]

What is gained? Less criminality in society.

That's the whole fucking point.

It would be interesting to hear your view on this if you ever were to belong to the estimated 4% that are executed for crimes they did not commit. http://www.thedailyjournal.com...

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really curious why this comment was down modded.

It's on topic, polite and clear. No name calling, no attacking or even silliness and jokes.

So in the end this must be downmodded due to the moderator disagreeing with my point.

Is that the policy here? Only approved comments allowed? No "free speech" I take it?

You twats are pathetic thin skinned assholes it what I seem to see. None of you would survive in an open debate with me, hide behind your mod powers and all slap each others backs with congratulations, woo hoo!

Do you want an echo chamber or intelligent debate? You cannot have both.

Intellectual pantywaist is what you are.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you talk about morally superior people you are talking about yourself, right?
Because you are in no position to say nothing about society as a whole or what society gains from anything, you self appointed "morally superior" guy.

Re:What's the problem?

[chaim79]

Thanks for the reasonable response.

I am personally for the death penalty, I believe your actions have consequence and you have to pay for that consequence (a liberal nightmare). There are crimes that are so horrendous that the only consequence that can be fitting is death. Considering the crimes that these men have been convicted of I think the penalty is correct.

As for the method of going about the death penalty, I think the current system is so overly complicated that it's almost designed to fail, and when it does fail it creates a terrible situation. Going back to something like the guillotine would be a good idea, while messy it is a quick, clean kill that is hard to botch.

Re:What's the problem?

[NatasRevol]

What percentage of that 4% is involved in the crime - accomplice, etc?

Probably most of it.

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

You do not qualify as human. You do qualify as dangerous and psychotic though.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

But... we don't execute people who aren't emotional targets(anymore). That debate will not happen. We got past the era of executing bread thieves. We just haven't gotten past the era of executing murderers.

Re:What's the problem?

[TheRaven64]

I disagree. It's very easy and intellectually lazy to say 'we should give the state the right to torture people to death, because look how bad this person is! Surely they'd only use it on someone that bad'. It's the same line of reasoning that says that the state should be granted warrantless wiretapping rights, because surely they'd only use them to go after terrorists. And maybe pedophiles.

If you're not okay with the state having a license to torture, then it doesn't matter how bad the person they're torturing is. If you are... then I hope I don't live somewhere where you're allowed to vote.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that a lot of us don't think our justice system should be a purely retributive system seeking vengeance upon those we consider "wastes of oxygen." (And no, the death penalty is not a deterrent.) Maybe this guy did deserve to die. But if so, then what about the next guy who not-quite-fatally shoots the girlfriend only once? Or the one who doesn't bury her alive, but just leaves her for dead? Or the one who just rapes her, and leaves her for dead, but didn't actually shoot her? Or the one who just rapes her?

Where do you draw the line between "he deserves to die" and "he's scum, but we'll just give him life in prison"? There's a demonstrable racial bias in which "wastes of oxygen" get put to death and which have better lawyers that can get them life in prison, or eventually paroled. Given that there will likely always be such biases and imbalances in our justice system, don't you think it's a bit on the callous side to sanction the ultimate punishment on an inequitable basis like this?

Complicating matters is the fact that sometimes the justice system just plain gets things wrong. Eyewitnesses are never 100% dependable. Confessions can and have been coerced. "Wastes of oxygen" that we were absolutely certain at the time "did it" turned out to be exonerated by later evidence. As the submitter referred to in his or her summary, we know that this is costing innocent people's lives.

Personally, I would rather have the guy locked safely away where he cannot harm anyone else, but still around in case we find later that there were mitigating circumstances or the jury just plain blew a verdict. Plus, although YOU consider him a "waste of oxygen," people like me consider the fact that even locked away, he can still contribute to society in discouraging others from following his path or, if nothing else, in helping researchers study the criminal mind. There's absolutely no harm in sentencing people to life in prison instead of death, other than the mob's blood lust for revenge doesn't get satisfied. Sorry, but that's just not compelling enough to me to kill someone who poses no threat.

And food for thought, once we give the state the right to determine who it is okay to kill who poses no threat, what's to stop the state from abusing that power? Do you honestly think that the government and the media have never colluded to present a narrative to The People to justify (and get away with) truly horrible things? What if it were YOU being railroaded through the system, with only one side (hint: not your side) of the story being presented for public consumption, and sentenced to death for something that you either did not do or that you did, but with extenuating circumstances that should be a mitigating factor in your trial, but that was suppressed for political expedience so that important people can be seen as "tough on crime"? How is it that you, who I am guessing were not on the jury or legal teams, or who otherwise has no first-hand knowledge of this case, are able to determine with 100% certainty that these guys are the "wastes of oxygen" that you believe them to be?

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

Indeed. But the bloodthirsty have no ethics anyways, so they will not understand that problem.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Guess what. You can be morally superior to a murderer too! All you gotta do is not kill people.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, why does the US still allow a death penalty?

Because sometimes you have to put an animal down.

Torture an animal and see how quick PETA hauls your sorry ass in a court of law.
Human beings are not animals, and even though that guy was guilty and was condemned to capital punishment. By no way that means you're authorized to torture him. Then why not kill him the good old way severing one arm at a time, then the legs and then the head. There is a reason the US Constitution says something about cruel punishment and torture.

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

Well, as it turns out quite a few people are not any better than the murderers they try to elevate themselves above.

Re:What's the problem?

[Sloppy]

but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.

WTF? People discuss that all the time. And apparently they split, with some people saying it's intolerable, and some people saying it's a good idea, and as usual, lots of people falling somewhere in between.

But let's not pretend that issue hasn't been discussed to death. Of course it has. And there are no new inputs, so few people have reason to change their opinion from whatever it already is. The fact that you (or the other side) never "won" the argument doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It just means that people don't know how to prove points of morality.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like he got what he deserved. I don't see a problem. Karma is a bitch.

Unless he was doing the good work for the bad karma the victim had accumulated in past life. Karma is a bitch. Or so is what you believe...

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this higher principal to uphold as a society?
That life is so precious that rapists murderers are a gift to society just for being alive?

Don't kill the rapist murderer, society will suffer a big loss.

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

That is complete immoral nonsense. Two wrongs do not make a right. And revenge is a deadly sin (as in: "cannot be forgiven") for a reason.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you witness the botched execution? Fuck you.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am vampire.

I kneel before no other creature.

I am an intelligent animal who has retained my animal intelligence.

This flesh of mine is a gift in which I celebrate passion and ecstasy, but my lot in the convoluted universal matrix is to exist as a creature of energy.

I thrive on the energy of the cosmos around me. That energy exists in many forms. It exists in lifeblood, in psychic forces, in the angry hurling of lightning bolts from cloud to cloud. This diversity manifests on the earth in the many different and legitimate breeds of vampire which share the world with mortal humans.

As a vampire, I am a natural being part of the natural universe. I am not confined to this plane or this dimension. I am a cosmic being of fluctuating energy. The matter that makes my flesh and flows through my body drifted down from the stars over millennia. My sight and my vision are necessarily wider and broader.

Life, death, what are these to me? They dance as close as hungry lovers. This is no two-sided mortal coin but one great continuum.

The impetus of eternity, then, is the power of the vampire. It is my power, and I claim that power for myself.

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

Easy: Those here that do not care how he died are _not_ any better. Still a lot of animals in the human race, and at times it shows.

Re:What's the problem?

[squizzar]

Hypothetical: A person is is of the opinion that someone must die. Perhaps this someone has committed an act so heinous that the person in question feels they should no longer be allowed to live. Why should that person not kill them? Is killing someone so abhorrent worse than allowing them to live?

Re:What's the problem?

[MightyMartian]

I'd be a little happier with all of that if the consequences of the execution of an innocent man was that the investigating officers, prosecutors, judge and jury, upon finding that an innocent man were killed, were taken out and shot.

Instead states that do execute people seem to take a great deal of effort never to properly review evidence of wrongful executions.

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

Two wrongs do not make a right. A fundamental moral principle. You just satisfied your sadistic lust for revenge.

Re:What's the problem?

[mrbester]

Or having executions at all. Civilised countries don't execute people, no matter their crimes.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

"We shouldn't kill people"
"That's baseless!"

How do you even respond to the assertion that "not killing" is baseless?

Want to know the difference between a murderer and a rabid dog? A rabid dog can never be rehabilitated because it's suffering from a degenerative neurological condition that is both incurable and dangerous that leads to suffering not just of its victims but also itself. Putting it down is a mercy. Whereas you're talking about a human being who made a terrible decision, but can reform, can be put through completely unnecessary suffering, and doesn't magically becoming incurably evil the moment of a crime.

You want to go back in time and shoot them before they kill someone? That's super duper okay. Pretending killing them after the fact somehow does something beneficial? That's just a revenge centered monkey-brain talking.

Re:What's the problem?

[Rich0]

Honestly, I think that is only the tip of the iceburg. The whole idea of punishing criminals seems pointless to me. How about rehabilitating them? If somebody is innocent, then we rehabilitate them and in theory that should go pretty quickly since they weren't particularly prone to committing crimes in the first place. If somebody is a likely criminal, then rehabilitation should involve whatever it takes to make them no longer a likely criminal. That doesn't necessarily mean locking them up at all, unless they're so prone to criminal behavior that having them out on the streets is a danger to society.

Getting rid of the death penalty is like arguing that it is better for an innocent person to be raped in prison for the rest of their life instead of being executed. It kind of misses the point, and I don't think the way we run prisons in the US is appropriate for even the guilty, let alone the innocent.

Re:What's the problem?

[daninaustin]

If you think the US is anywhere close to being like North Korea then you obviously know nothing about North Korea.

Re:What's the problem?

[MachineShedFred]

It's never been proven that capital punishment has been an effective deterrent in the United States. Especially considering that any would-be murderers involved in a criminal syndicate (drugs, traditional RICO, etc.) that would be subject to execution face far worse penalties should they NOT murder someone, and their executioner would be far less dainty about the procedure.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nature" doesn't give a shit.

Absolutely. There is no arbiter doling out just desserts and any system implemented by any human society is flawed because it will be abused by humans. Particularly those tasked with implementing it.

Re:What's the problem?

[MachineShedFred]

Practically every culture and religion in history?

Re:What's the problem?

[sandytaru]

Ironically, putting an inmate on death row and going through the process is far, far more expensive than simply incarcerating them for life. Since they usually have a public defender as a lawyer and it has to go through the appeals process many times, a criminal who is ultimately executed usually costs the state several million dollars. Whereas the cost of keeping them incarcerated is 20-50K a year depending on the state.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Yeah, but your balancing your equation of "what's a life worth" against literally no measurable benefit(that I've ever seen demonstrated in any sort of factual way, before we get some bizarre hypothetical here).

I'll continue to assert that substantive evidence about improvement of quality of life/safety for other citizens is a valid reason, but you actually have to prove that to overturn principal for "pragmatism".

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they are not. There is something more to being human than being alive and murderers lose it when they kill.

Re:What's the problem?

[sandytaru]

I mentioned this in another comment in this thread, but death row costs a state more than incarceration for life, due to all the automatic appeals.

Re:What's the problem?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This. Do I feel bad a murderer suffers pain? Not really. But human history is so full of torture as a tool of state, the founding fathers included a ban on it in their wisdom, along with many other gems like freedom of speech and religion and so on, precisely because of abuse of all of it by men trying to stay in power.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't think the way we run prisons in the US is appropriate for even the guilty,"

I actually agree with you and you go so far as to say that in many cases our prison system qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment and should be addressed.

But this discussion was about the death penalty and mechanisms of such, which is kind of a different topic.

I believe that in many many cases the death penalty is fully appropriate.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

At least the bad parts that lead to massive injustices in those cultures, yeah.

A book that does a great job discussing the topic of dehumanization.

Re:What's the problem?

[cHALiTO]

The drugs are more expensive.

Re:What's the problem?

[Golddess]

revenge is a deadly sin (as in: "cannot be forgiven") for a reason.

While I agree that what happened is wrong, basing ones argument on religious reasons will never work. Because seven simple words will completely deconstruct your argument.

"My religion does not have that concept."

Re:What's the problem?

[blackraven14250]

Leaving the brain intact during an execution without sedatives necessarily introduces a period of intense suffering clearly able to be described as torture. That's why we don't use the guillotine, or hang people anymore, even though either would be much cheaper than injections.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's never been proven that capital punishment has been an effective deterrent"

Who the fuck cares? It's not about deterring, it's about punishing.

Good grief, can you not understand that some people do things that are so violent, so terrible, so inhuman that it cannot otherwise be tolerated and this person has to be dealt with by people that are themselves human and civilized; that is the person who commits these terrible acts cannot be allowed to remain people.

This is a textbook case of one such person. Deterrence has fuck-all to do with this.

Re:What's the problem?

[jedidiah]

> It is easy to be cavalier until you consider yourself, or someone you care about, being innocent.

The same smugness applies to an execution or life in prison. You've just managed to kid yourself that one is cruel while the other is not. This is total bullsh*t of course.

You simply choose to ignore the decades on death row and for no good reason either.

Re:What's the problem?

[Viol8]

Who says executing him was wrong? Thats just your opinion. Or were you just going for Cliche of the Week? And there's nothing wrong with revenge either - a perfectly normal human emotion. No doubt in your mind you're occupying some moral high ground but from where I'm looking you waist deep in a load of liberal shit and its stinking the place up. Honestly, people like you must have your brains wired differently to normal people, thats the only explanation.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Sounds like you've only ever heard the word out-loud.

It's spelled "macabre", which is different enough that spellcheck couldn't help you.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

"probably *wild assertion*"

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

And food for thought, once we give the state the right to determine who it is okay to kill who poses no threat, what's to stop the state from abusing that power?

Quite. Like what is happening in Egypt right now where a court has convicted 650 people to death, ostensibly for rioting and being members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The mass trial lasted a few hours.

Amongst those convicted, for rioting remember, one of them is wheelchair bound due to Polio. He can't even stand up, let alone throw things at the police and run away.

These people are being convicted to death not because they deserve it, but because the military junta currently running the country want to wipe out the Muslim Brotherhood. People will say "Oh but this is America and nothing like this will ever happen", but then conveniently forget times from the past such as McCarthy; let's not pretend that if the panic had increased, the government would have gleefully killed people for "spying", on the most flimsy of evidence. Let's not forget too, the various kangaroo courts that the US government have tried to establish to try Gitmo detainees: those are a gnats fart away from killing people just because they don't like a persons politics.

Still, as long as it's not you, or a loved one, being strapped to the gurney, everything's fine.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Based on [error:missing data] highly considered philosophical treatise?

Re:What's the problem?

[BVis]

The difference is that what they may actually have done may or may not be a capital offense.

It's more ethical, cheaper, and more just to not execute your own citizens. Let the bastards rot, sure. If the family wants revenge they can go see what the asshole's turned into in the lifer block.

Re:What's the problem?

[X0563511]

I would prefer the guilty walk free over the innocent being condemned.

You can't "undo" an execution or imprisonment. The guilty still have a chance at getting theirs.

Re:What's the problem?

[X0563511]

A psychopath would be ideal for it. Don't confuse terms. Someone being able to turn off their switch and just do the job is arguably better than someone doing it because it has to be done (and suffering mentally for it)

Re:What's the problem?

[Noah Haders]

At some point the whole prosecution process is so convoluted and loaden with the egos of the prosecutors and the defense attorneys, plea bargains and with public opinions and botched investigations

agreed, look at the amanda knox case. that thing is a nightmare of italian lawyer and judge egos scrambling to avoid embarrassment. So it sends an american girl to prison for 28 years. so what?

Re:What's the problem?

[mopower70]

See this makes my whole week. Shitbag dirty criminal animal who rapes and murders multiple people gets "absolutely tremendous levels of suffering"

There is a huge grin on my face right now. Knowing it pisses you off even makes me happier.

Cool!

Capthca: Hilarity! Can you believe it! HAHAHAH Fuck off.,

Anonymous Coward has never been more applicable. Take off your sheet clansman and show your face.

Re:What's the problem?

[pla]

Beautiful. Only on Slashdot could posting the actual background information of the case at hand count as "trolling".

Re:What's the problem?

[Frankie70]

All this concern over suffering of someone you are planning to kill. It really strikes me as silly

I think this about people fighting for humane treatment of animals before killing them.

However, for people - it's different - we have laws to not torture them.

Re:What's the problem?

[KingOfBLASH]

In that case, amend your constitution to say that it's fine to torture criminals once they've been convicted. If you're going to pretend to have the rule of law, then at least make a token effort to follow your own rules.

There is no such thing as a torture free (pain free) way to take someone's life. (Although you could also argue putting someone in solitary for forty years is also a form of torture).

Re:What's the problem?

[NatasRevol]

As opposed to "knowing" that 4% of executed criminals were innocent?

Re:What's the problem?

[Sique]

I believe that the ability of making a difference between the cases where the death penalty is approbriate and those, where there is doubt and those where the defendant is innocent is so limited, that we should abolish the death penalty in general. I might make an exception if the people (investigators, prosecutors, judges) who caused someone later found innocent to be executed, are guilty of murder if they acted willfully (fishy plea bargain deals. obstructing or omitting exculpatory evidence etc.pp.) and second degree murder, if they just botched up totally.

Besides that: I don't think the death penalty makes sense at all. It is no penalty, as it doesn't influence the future behaviour of the perpetrator. It is just codified revenge.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyhoo, I'm sure concerned volunteers a lining up around the block to help test a new killer concoction...

Why would we do that when there is already a viable "concoction"? I say "concoction" because I don't think the average person would call a single element a concoction.

It's called nitrogen gas.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, amend your constitution to say that it's fine to torture criminals once they've been convicted.

Protip: Try reading more than just the first three sentences. You'll be able to post much better responses that aren't complete nonsense.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Okay, took some digging on the proceedings of the national academy of sciences.

Essentially they applied comparative statistical methods on exoneration rates of those on death row(but not yet executed), those not on death row, and found that while the latter mapped to a Poisson distribution for exoneration occurrences, the former fell off sharply at the time of execution(but until then fitting the same model).

They then extrapolated that curve forward past the point of execution, concluding that if they had been continuing to fight for exoneration 4.1% would have gotten it. This includes the very small dataset of those who actually were exonerated after death. They call those conclusion a conservative estimate because it's entirely possible that exoneration rates don't actually cover the full set of unjustly punished.

Re:What's the problem?

[ttucker]

To be perfectly fair, there is no rational way to read what I said, and come up with what you claim I said. It is almost as if you were a troll or something.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretending I'm endorsing the murder of one person because I don't support the torture of another.

You said it. What you are endorsing is a withholding of true justice for said crimes and a removal of proper and fair deterrence of future crimes. While you aren't endorsing the murder of innocents, you aren't properly protecting them from the murderers either. Willfully neglecting to protect the innocent and provide them proper justice isn't much better than committing the murder yourself, as far as I'm concerned. It's murder by proxy, if you will. It may even be worse, as society as a whole has the essential and important task of protecting the innocent, not ensuring they are more vulnerable.

What I actually said is that it is true and equal justice to exact the same punishment upon the guilty as they have exacted on their innocent victims. However, in the case of murder, simply ending the life of the murderer doesn't seem to provide equal justice. The innocent victim didn't deserve to die, whereas the murderer does. In order to provide a more fair and equal justice, it seems additional punishment is in order prior to death. Therefore, if a murderer happens to feel some pain on his way out of this world, it's nothing that wasn't already well deserved.

Great. That's extraordinarily dishonest and you should feel bad.

Yes, that was extraordinarily honest of you to point out. I don't feel bad at all that you did.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? Our country hasn't believed in the value of life, liberty, or happiness since some schmucks flew some airplanes into a couple of buildings in NYC. The great State of Oklahoma had every right to use whatever chemicals it wanted for the execution, and we should be grateful that they've compassionately chosen to delay further executions until the incident can be studied more carefully. After all, there is still a Constitution that suggests the government should avoid deliberately torturing people to death, so long as they're not terrorists, but it's by no means a mandate.

</rant>

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

We think there's a higher principal to uphold as a society

Yes, we kill murderers instead of killing innocent people. Here's a basic flowchart:

Do you think murderers are innocent people? No -- Then your argument is totally fucked.
Do you think murderers are innocent people? Yes -- Then your brain is totally fucked.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

"true justice"

By which you mean killing a person. Because reasons.

Re:What's the problem?

[Rich0]

My feeling is that we're going about it all wrong, and talking about the death penalty only makes sense once you can get agreement on just what the purpose of the justice system is in the first place.

In my thinking, people commit crimes because they have a behavioral impulse combined with some kind of stimulus that exceeds their ability to control their own behavior, or they have an antisocial behavior that leads them to choose not to control their behavior.

If any of those factors is "fixed," then no crime will take place. If somebody is only prone to killing their wife if they're sick, have three days of argument in a row, and their kid dies the day before, then as crazy as it sounds they're actually fine to let loose on the street without any rehabilitation at all since something like that will almost certainly never happen to them again. If somebody is prone to kill somebody anytime they sneeze, then if you remove that impulse then they're again safe to let loose in public. If somebody just doesn't have a good sense of self-control, or if they deliberately choose to act in antisocial ways, then if you change their attitude or teach them how to handle their emotions, then they are again safe to let out.

If you accept that the solution to crime is to fix the criminal so that they are no longer a criminal, then locking somebody up for life or executing them only makes sense if you find criminals that are impossible to fix.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

US propaganda seems to be alomost as effective as the one in North Korea

You should try leaving the US (in a few years, of course, after you graduate high school) and see that our news is extremely impartial in comparison to any other country on the planet. Foreign newspapers read more like American tabloids (because that's what sells) or as straight up campaign commercials for the incumbents. During the Iraqi war, I remember reading a German newspaper that claimed "Iraqis were throwing Roses at American soldiers in Anger" -- I cannot make that up. I met a girl who thought that I, as a traveling American, was trying to kill her because her country's news told her that if she ever meets an American, she will die.

Re:What's the problem?

[LoyalOpposition]

First, why does the US still allow a death penalty?

Well, our judgement is that it provides a number of advantages. One advantage is the it prevents the convicted from committing further crimes. It's safer for the other prisoners, and it's safer for the guards. Another advantage is that it prevents others from committing particularly heinous crimes. I realise that there's evidence that such is not the case, but the evidence is not unequivocal; a reasonable person may still come to that conclusion. A third advantage is that it prevents people from declaring vendetta and taking vengeance. A fourth advantage is that it provides closure for the families and friends of the victim. Families don't have to keep track of parole hearings, and spend time and money testifying against parole.

We tend to argue how much a prisoner costs society, but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.

I disagree. We tend to discuss the morality of executing people ad nauseam. If there's anything left un-discussed, I think it's the effect on the executioners. Knowing that you've killed a human being is going to do something undesirable to your psyche. I worry what it does to them later in life.

Next, and relates to the first is that the Prison systems in the US have become a for profit business.

I don't have a problem with that, but then I think of profit as the price we pay for efficiency. I understand that there's something dissonant about imprisoning people efficiently, but it does have the advantage over imprisoning them inefficiently. Maybe it would be better to think of it as imprisoning people expensively versus not imprisoning them expensively.

The privatization of prisons has caused countless issues. Such as contracts requiring a specific capacity at all times in prisons and the exploitation of prisoners. Laws have been passed to help keep prisons at capacity...

I'm not aware of those events, but I'll take your word for it. That being said, and I'm trying not to be flippant here, I can't see how the one relates to the other. I mean--if one executes a prisoner then the prisoner is not maintaining the capacity of the prison, is he? How do prison businesses exploit a corpse? And aren't laws being passed to keep prisons at capacity a problem with the legislature rather than one with the business?

...nearly everyone in the US can commit several felonies every day without their knowledge.

Now that is a problem I worry about. We imprison more people per capita than any other country. We're not a particularly lawless people, are we? Why do we put so many in prison? Something is wrong. Now, it could be said that we aren't lawless because we imprison so many, but I think that's just plain wrong. I particularly decry the increasing lack of a mens rea in recently passed laws. What's the point of that!

We could discuss other issues, such as how rehabilitation in the US really does not exist and society lacks opportunity for people motivating people to illegal activities but can save that for later.

Well...okay.

We should address why the US has the highest percentage of people in prison in the world,...

Amen, brother!

...and why we still have executions first.

Been there; done that; the T-shirt's stained with blood.

~Loyal

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you are better then that? Don't stoop to their level. Do your dirty work and move on. Getting enjoyment out of it is macab, and disturbing.

If he didn't rape, torture, and murder, then yes, he is better than that. He didn't say he enjoyed the execution, just that he didn't give a rat's ass about the suffering. Don't equate the two.

Re:What's the problem?

[Wain13001]

>The alternative says to the criminal that he is free to commit all manner of mayhem.

Legal punishment as a deterrent has been proven not to work.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting comparison, considering how much more humanely we put down animals vs people.

Re:What's the problem?

[Isaac-1]

This was not torture to death, was not even close, it may not have been the most painless execution, but people die in far more painful ways in every hospital in america every day.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lethal dose of hydromorphone (an order of magnitude stronger than morphine) was used in the "botched execution" in Ohio, along with a strong benzodiazepine. The person being executed was unconscious, but his brain stem spent about 20 minutes trying to breathe. A similar thing happens with heroin overdoses, and everyone I've talked to on the internet who has been in that overdose situation says they felt nothing. The problem? The people who came to watch human beings kill another human being were "disturbed" by it.

Re:What's the problem?

[NeutronCowboy]

Or asphyxiation by Nitrogen. Feed them pure Nitrogen, watch them pass and die without their body noticing the total absence of oxygen.

I'm fairly convinced that the US actually wants executions to be gruesome. Otherwise, they'd have settled on some long-known and totally harmless methods.

Re:What's the problem?

[amiga3D]

I think you are the exception. Most people can't abide the thought of a loved one being killed and there being a 100% chance that justice will not be served. They'll take the 4% chance (most likely much less) of getting the wrong guy than the certainty of zero justice.

Re:What's the problem?

[amiga3D]

Looking at the mess the prison industry is I feel a life sentence is crueler than the death penalty. A lifetime of torture versus a quick death (aside from idiots that can't manage to kill a guy quickly.)

Re:What's the problem?

[amiga3D]

I think rehabilitation is good for crimes other than capital ones. Murder, the taking of life by an individual, creates so much damage to families and society as a whole as to require at the least a life sentence. Otherwise you end up with vigilantism as people seek their own justice. So the state handles it or you end up with something like the "Hatfields & McCoys" where it's a rifle blast from the woods or a knife to the ribs in a bar.

Re:What's the problem?

[tompaulco]

I would prefer the guilty walk free over the innocent being condemned.

Well, then we should not even bother with a system of law, because there is always some margin of doubt. We'll save trillions a year on lawyers, police, jails, courts and government, which the criminals can then steal from us without penalty.

Re:What's the problem?

[misexistentialist]

Autoappeal should be eliminated then. Really just for show anyway, which is a not a good reason to waste money

Re:What's the problem?

[orgelspieler]

I consider this "accidental" suffering nothing short of karma injecting a tiny slice of justice back into this particular case.

Accidental?! Really? You can't be serious in thinking that this was an accident. This was a deliberate bypass of ethical measures put in place decades ago. It might have been unintended or unexpected by some, but it was perfectly expected by many. Why else would Oklahoma have gone through all the trouble of concealing the nature of the drugs being used?

That being said, I'm surprised they didn't do the baby raper first. Burying a 19-year-old alive is pretty heinous, but raping and murdering a baby... It would have been hard to shed a tear if that SOB had suffered for 43 minutes.

Re:What's the problem?

[amiga3D]

An execution is supposed to be quick and efficient. The working of the State without emotion, the simple consequence for the action of the guilty.

Re:What's the problem?

[orgelspieler]

There's a news article that got it backwards. I nearly made the same mistake, too.

Re:What's the problem?

[tompaulco]

How about rehabilitating them?

Well, I am all in favor of that, but how do you actually DO that? What if they don't want to be rehabilitated? What if they like raping and killing babies (that is what one of these guys did)? What if they pretend they were rehabilitated so that you would let them re-enter society and then they did it again? The crime that eventually got these guys on death row was only the last on their rap sheet. Some people are deemed fit to re-enter society and then go back to the prison several times over.
I'm sure everybody would be happy to rehab instead of incarcerate if only somebody could come up with a rehab plan that actually worked.

Re:What's the problem?

[kyrsjo]

Not all societies have "life in prison" on the menu.

Re:What's the problem?

[hypergreatthing]

How is putting hardened criminals in a jail system where they are deprived of freedoms, assaulted by other inmates and guards, sexually assaulted, murdered, etc not considered torture? Wouldn't it make more sense to put them out of their misery if they are facing the rest of their lives in that condition?

Re:What's the problem?

[kyrsjo]

But do you weight the two equally? Do you think the killing of a murderer makes up for the murder of an innocent?

I do not.

Re:What's the problem?

[bricko]

it wasnt "botched"...the guy is dead....wasnt that the purpose of the entire exercise. If they wanted a quicker outcome.....give me call. Have several custom built AR's that could be helpful and much more sure of action.

Re:What's the problem?

[ilsaloving]

Something of value is lost: we don't want executioners to get psychological rewards from executioning people. By turning death penalty into a circus, we entice psychopaths and sadists to apply for this job. As a society, we don't want to train the next generation of serial killers by giving them these kind of jobs. We want people that don't enjoy executions as executioners, hence why executions should be clean, fast and as boring as possible.

This is a very interesting point that I haven't seen anywhere else, and a point I hadn't considered. Unfortunately I'm out of mod points so I'll just comment instead.

Re:What's the problem?

[xevioso]

I find it interesting that someone calculated 4% of people on DR are innocent, when not a single Jury or judge found those people innocent. It's amusing to me that the people who have these statistics have information they consider exonerating when the judges nor the jury have it.

Or maybe they are making it up.

Re:What's the problem?

[xevioso]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Re:What's the problem?

[xevioso]

Why, because he believes that those who have committed atrocities unjustly on innocent people should experience some level of pain when dying? How does this make one a barbarian or a klansman?

Re:What's the problem?

[xevioso]

They are human beings physically. But in my opinion people who bury alive an innocent woman lose pretty much all rights as a human being once convicted, including the right to life.

Re:What's the problem?

[xevioso]

This is comic book morality.

"don't stoop to their level" and "inflicting vengeance on someone makes you no better than they are" are silly tropes that people say to make themselves feel better. It has no bearing in the real world when it comes to how we act towards others.

Justice is not dependent upon "stooping to their level."

Re:What's the problem?

[kyrsjo]

And that's probably one of the types of criminals which are most likely to weigh the consequences and probabilities of getting caught against the gained benefits from the crime. The type where harsh punishments actually can make a difference on the probability of a person going through with said crime.

Unfortunately, I would be suprised if not this type is a minority compared to crimes caused by badly planned robberies, crimes of passion, intoxication, and just general stupidity.

Re:What's the problem?

[xevioso]

Because capital punishment is not murder. Here in the real world, not in some comic-book level world, we have different terms for different types of killing. A murder is unjustly killing someone. Capital punishment is the state killing someone because that person committed a murder. They are two different things. here in the real world.

Re:What's the problem?

[xevioso]

It's interesting that the people who did this study have evidence and information that the jury did not hear, nor did the judges hear or choose to believe. Almost as if they know something those other people don't about the case. Or they are making it up.

Re:What's the problem?

[xevioso]

I disagree that it is more ethical. i think it is in fact LESS ethical to let a convicted murderer live.

Re:What's the problem?

[xevioso]

This is a baseless assumption on your part, and it is one of the reasons the European model of rehabilitation is stupid. The facts are that a very large percentage of people in prison, especially murderers, are clinical psychopaths. Many of these people cannot be rehabilitated, and it is the height of silliness to believe otherwise.

Fighting for rehabilitation is an insult to the families of the people these murderers have killed, because it ignores the past crime, and instead focuses ONLY on the future. It's as if the state is saying, "Well, yeah that was horrible, you raping and murdering that child, but hey! With some medicine, a few get-togethers with a psychologist, and we'll set you free!" rather than PUNISHING people for their crimes.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Philosophically it's Justice via eye for an eye but markedly more humane than even that. And that's pretty just.

So we're perfectly clear. We're not dropping to the same level. Because that would mean when they caught him, (not years after) we would have forced his friends or family to dig a shallow grave in a roadside ditch, we'd shoot him so he was stunned but still alive, then force his friends to bury him alive or they'd be next. That would be dropping to his level. We'd also laugh about it while doing it. And we'd give him the indignity of having to beg and plead for his life and have that be how he was remembered.

Just remember. That's this guy's level. And that's pretty damn low. I think we're about as polar opposite of that as it gets without being suckers.

Instead, our level is determining over the course of 16 years that indeed this man committed an act with unabashed cruelty and represents a clear danger to society. And a jury of his peers determined he is likely to commit a similar act if let back into society. Ergo, for the cause of Justice his punishment is death. The process for a Death Penalty case is probably about as humane as it gets here. I say that because regular, everyday people, not lawyers or judges or politicians have the final say as to whether or not a man like this lives or dies. People he's never met, people deemed generally good citizens and people who have to live with themselves if they send an innocent person to their deathbed. And as quoted by the article cited above he has (as do most death row inmates) a number of re-trials with some of the best defense lawyers there are to reverse this ruling.

Don't let your ignorance cloud your judgement. Clearly you've never been around truly violent people, or if you have it's scarred you in a way that (for some reason) has stripped your willingness to defend yourself and innocent people.

The guy that was next? He anally raped an 11 month old baby after shaking and beating her to death just in the next room feet away from his own kids. Was tried three times. (got sentenced to life in the middle) He was also suspected of beating a 5 year old girl with an electrical cord and raping her. So yeah. I'd like to use strong words here, but I know you're ignorant of the realities of a hard life and I hope you never have to personally endure a lesson that changes your mind. I will say... You're wrong. You're very, very wrong.

Re:What's the problem?

[BVis]

Eye for an eye, etc. And "convicted" does not mean "guilty".

Re:What's the problem?

[pnutjam]

It might be cruel, but we have insured it is not unusual.

Re:What's the problem?

[TheCarp]

Perhaps silly was the wrong word.... disingenuine is more what I meant.

Sorry but I fail to see how this pseudomedical procedure is less torturous than a simple bullet to the brain stem.

as far as I can tell, the only benefit of these procedures is to dress it up for the benefit of the executioners and the state so they can make it look like something less barbaric than it is.

As I said, if they can't stomac murdering people for their crimes, they should stop doing it, not look for better ways to soothe their conscience

Re:What's the problem?

[TheCarp]

So if I want them to admit that their practice is barbaric and not less tortureous because they dress it up like a medical procedure, I should advocate legalizing torture? And that is insightful?

Re:What's the problem?

[Richy_T]

The "state" is merely a collection of individuals. An action doesn't become moral just because the individual is hidden amongst others.

Re: What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, why do they inject them these "untested drugs" instead of an overdose of morphine or something? Pentabarbital? I don't get that ...

Re: What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, why do they inject them these "untested drugs" instead of an overdose of morphine or something? Pentabarbital? It won't get any more boring than that.
And it's save.
Not that I'm pro death-penalty btw...

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're cute. I mean adorably fluffy cute. I'm not sure if you're believing in sky fairy justice or karma, but there are some concentration camp officers out there, somewhere, giggling.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

You're saying you're dealing with a genuine mental illness with torture. Great. Nice job.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're endorsing is tasking individuals to execute others by torturing them to death. This job will only attract people with sadistic tendencies which will be reinforced. What will you say when they snap and start torturing and killing people on their free time? Willfully training the next generation of serial killers by giving them jobs where they get to kill and torture other people isn't much better than committing the murder yourself.

Re:What's the problem?

[sjames]

Which makes you a total sicko. I guess we'll need to schedule you for execution.

Re:What's the problem?

[sjames]

Because if you don't, that makes you just as bad as him. You know what we do to people as bad as him, don't you?

Re:What's the problem?

[xevioso]

Actually it does, and you have failed to understand what the word justice means.

Re:What's the problem?

[s.petry]

When TFA includes this little gem of a statistic the problem becomes much more obvious. sciencehabit also points out a study indicating that around 4% of death row inmates in the U.S. are likely innocent.

So we not only have a messed up legal and prison system that can get innocent people imprisoned for felonies, we have a messed up legal system that can sentence 4 out 100 people to die for crimes they never committed.

The argument you are making (look at his crime) is simply an appeal to emotion which lacks logical merit. And look, I fully agree that certain people can not be rehabilitated. Should any people be legally killed while we have severe problems with both our legal and penal systems? Hell no. Should we be convicting people of felonies when society does not offer them any other option? (think of narcotics) Again hell no. Prison terms and real rehabilitation where possible? I absolutely agree with this approach.

Re:What's the problem?

[s.petry]

If people _are_ being executed the obviously someone did win the debate. Hint: It's not the people in disagreement or on the fence.

Re:What's the problem?

[TechyImmigrant]

>4% I doubt
Doubtless to know this, you must have better evidence.

So why not do the math, publish a paper refuting the logic of the paper that produced the 4% number?

Re:What's the problem?

[Rich0]

How about rehabilitating them?

Well, I am all in favor of that, but how do you actually DO that?

I don't have all the answers, though I suspect we could make a lot more progress on that front for far less money than we spend locking up some significant percentage of the population. I think admitting that we're doing it wrong is half the battle.

What if they don't want to be rehabilitated?

Non-cooperation with the rehabilitation program would be cause to lock you up until you cooperate. That would be indefinite in duration, even if all you did was shoplift. If a way can be devised to rehabilitate people against their will that would be another solution.

What if they like raping and killing babies (that is what one of these guys did)?

You'd need to treat them until they no longer like these sorts of things, however long that takes.

What if they pretend they were rehabilitated so that you would let them re-enter society and then they did it again? The crime that eventually got these guys on death row was only the last on their rap sheet. Some people are deemed fit to re-enter society and then go back to the prison several times over.

Clearly such an approach necessitates a need for a way to determine whether somebody is actually rehabilitated.

I'm sure the system won't be foolproof. Some people will be let out and re-offend, but that happens in probably the majority of cases today already, so we could hardly make things worse.

Today rehabilitation is viewed as a voluntary activity for minor offenders as an alternative to prison. I think we need to look at it as either an involuntary process, or if you're allowed to opt-out you're basically agreeing to life in prison for committing even a misdemeanor.

In such a system, somebody who likes to kill kids might be forced to undergo rehabilitation until an fMRI shows the right parts of their brain lighting up when they are shown pictures of dead kids, or whatever. This wouldn't be just a matter of answering some questions correctly in an interview. Rehabilitating criminals requires understanding the root cause of their criminality, and correcting it. Certainly we don't have the technology to do this today in all cases, but I suspect we could do far more once society accepts that involuntarily changing people's personalities is preferable to locking them up forever or executing them.

Re:What's the problem?

[Rich0]

I think rehabilitation is good for crimes other than capital ones. Murder, the taking of life by an individual, creates so much damage to families and society as a whole as to require at the least a life sentence. Otherwise you end up with vigilantism as people seek their own justice. So the state handles it or you end up with something like the "Hatfields & McCoys" where it's a rifle blast from the woods or a knife to the ribs in a bar.

Revenge will only go so far. Somebody commits a crime and is rehabilitated. So, somebody else tries to kill them and they get rehabilitated. This can only go so far before the entire population has been rehabilitated, and then nobody will be inclined to seek revenge.

Acting on a desire for revenge is as much of a crime as the original act that provoked it.

Re:What's the problem?

[jbssm]

None of you would survive in an open debate with me

Of course not. It's mathematically proven that it's impossible to win a debate with a troll since the troll just keeps trolling any argument and evidence given by the other part.

Re:What's the problem?

[jbssm]

What is gained is justice and a deterrence to future criminals.

Of course that the fact that all statistical evidence points that an harsher penalty is not a deterrent to violent crimes, was simply put aside by you in order to present your flawed argument.

Re:What's the problem?

[udippel]

The whole idea of punishing criminals seems pointless to me. How about rehabilitating them? If somebody is innocent, then we rehabilitate them and in theory that should go pretty quickly since they weren't particularly prone to committing crimes in the first place. If somebody is a likely criminal, then rehabilitation should involve whatever it takes to make them no longer a likely criminal.

Sorry, but you come across like a tad naive person. What do you mean 'then we rehabilitate them'?? How's this done?? Do you think it only takes some effort, a bit of psychology, and then - voilà - the murderer cum rapist who buried alive the girl he had raped before turns into an angel? Or what?

Re:What's the problem?

[avgjoe62]

I too would prefer the guilty walk free over the innocent being condemned to death. This has nothing to do with the crime, but rather the punishment. I would rather imprison every convicted murderer for life rather than execute one innocent person.

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, The Lord of The Rings

Re: What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfecto

Re:What's the problem?

[Cederic]

That may be the case, but I'd rather kill them than the innocent 4%.

If someone is so desperate that someone innocent must die as a result of harm to a loved one then it seems only fair that they offer to be that person.

Re: What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

How bout as a supporter of the death penalty you are legally held responsible for the rare case when a mistake is made (conspiracy to commit murder). If there are actual consequences for your position (maybe even including the death penalty), can you live with that?

Re:What's the problem?

[Cederic]

Are you five years old or just mentally that fucking stupid?

Lets add another step to your basic flowchart:

Does the state kill people whether they're innocent or not? Yes -- then you've conceded the argument
Does the state kill people whether they're innocent or not? No -- then you need to go away, do some research and learn about why you're both wrong, and a total fuckwit.
]

Re:What's the problem?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You just satisfied your sadistic lust for revenge.

Actually I'm just happy that justice was served. I'm just not that broken up by the complications during the execution of the sentence he was given.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

At some point the whole prosecution process is so convoluted and loaden with the egos of the prosecutors and the defense attorneys,

Justice would be blind if the jury couldn't see the faces of any of the people involved. Stick to transcripts, no theatrics and outbursts. Emotionally manipulative or uncontrolled people are more likely to get off than those in shock from the death of a loved one and then accused of that very crime.

Re:What's the problem?

[Cederic]

Yeah, I see that as further evidence that the death penalty has fuck all to do with justice and everything to do with retribution and winning votes by appealing to stupid people that can't think properly.

There are known painless ways to kill people, and the states always reject all of them.

Re:What's the problem?

[Slider451]

This is comic book morality.

No, that's good-guy morality. You can try to dismiss it with a pejorative, but I'll side with comic book morality over what I infer you consider a more mature and subtle value system.

"Not might makes right, but might _for_ right" - King Arthur, Camelot

Re:What's the problem?

[Darinbob]

A big issue here is that while we know how to humanely kill pets, we refuse to do the same thing when it comes to killing humans. Part of the problem is that most doctors absolutely refuse to become involved (it violates the hippocratic oath in no uncertain terms), so the process is left in the hands of medics or technicians. Note that anesthesiologists are doctors and not technicians so they are not involved either. For similar reasons, no one does any research about this, so the techniques being used are from a long sequence of trial and error. So all these three drug cocktails procedures and the like are not scientific.

Re: What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there was only some way I could access news from around the world from the comfort of my own home. Like a network of websites. We could call it the internet and everyone could get news from around the world. Oh wait, we do.

Face it Americans get the news we want and don't give a shit what other people think.

Re:What's the problem?

[Darinbob]

Modern politics, the same as ancient politics, is all about pretending the opposition are the worst possible people to ever walk the planet.
It helps to shut down all communication, lest someone accidentally begin to understand other points of view. This is similar to demonization used in wartime.

Re:What's the problem?

[cusco]

People claim that "studies" show that the death penalty doesn't work, but really what it shows is that the death penalty **as instituted in the US** doesn't work. If you ever go to Cusco, Peru, you will never have a gun or knife pulled on you. You may get your purse snatched or your pocket picked, but you will never be threatened with a weapon. Every five or ten years some young punk from Lima decides that he's going to rob tourists, and the local thieves are just too old fashioned and chickenshit to use weapons. Two or three tourists get held up, and then the punk shows up dead on the bank of the Huatanay River and the tourists are safe for several more years. No one actually seems to know whether it's the police or other thieves, but it works very well and keeps the tourism industry healthy.

Re:What's the problem?

[Darinbob]

Most people who are in favor of the death penalty are also unaware of the facts of how it is actually used, or deny the facts. Often the feeling is that death penalty is reserved only for the worst of the worst criminals, and it's hard to vote against such a viewpoint. The reality though is that this is not true, it is used in many cases in rather average murders, and seeking the death penalty is up to prosecutorial discretion. Another view is that there are many safeguards in the system, but that is also not necessarily true either, most persons on death row received very poor legal representation, and the legal system in general is very biased against poor or minority defendants (black people are more likely to get the death penalty than white people for the same offense, even more so if the victim is white rather than black).

Much of this is about education. As society learns more the less the desire to keep the death penalty. However there are people who feel strongly that it should be retained, but even there the argument has shifted away from death penalty being necessary as a deterrant because evidence shows this has no deterrant effect.

It is highly unlikely that the supreme court would rule against the death penalty per se, so it is up to individual states to build up movement against it. Note that even California which is often ridiculed as a liberal hotbed still retains the death penalty.

Re:What's the problem?

[Darinbob]

A problem is that seeking the death penalty is up to prosecutors discretion most of the time. Thus one murder will result in a death penalty whereas another almost identical murder will not (and not even get life). Very often the difference depends upon some extra circumstance, such as whether a cop was killed rather than a civilian. The death penalty is absolutely not reserved for crimes that are so horrendous that they exceed the pale. Statistics show that a black person who kills a white victim is vastly more likely to get the death penalty than a white person who kills a black victim (and unless we're being racist, both situations should be treated identically under the law).

Eye for an eye is an old testament guideline (actually intended to limit the punishment), whereas new testament explicitly turns away from that and counsels forgiveness and mercy (gah, that Jesus was such a bleeding heart liberal!). So it is somewhat ironic that the death penalty remains in force in some states with a high number of protestant voters, which to me implies this is a much more cultural or political issue than a religious one.

Re:What's the problem?

[Darinbob]

I wonder a lot of the amount of effort expended in order to avoid reviewing cases and evidence is done in order to avoid the guilt that may occur if the person is innocent. Though there is another cause, in that most prosecutors seem inherently predisposed to assume a defendant is guilty and they fight very strenuously even when there is overwhelming evidence against guilt. (just want the news coverage following a prisoner being released after new evidence comes to light, and it is rare that the prosecutor will agree and admit that a mistake was made)

Re:What's the problem?

[Darinbob]

Yes, today that was the case. But there are many many cases where the person was not more of a monster than the murderer who only got 15-25 years. The death penalty is not reserved for only the worst monsters.

Re:What's the problem?

[Darinbob]

Most automatic appeals are the FIRST chance that a poor defendant actually has decent counsel instead of the underqualified court appointed joke. If you have a good lawyer and are white you will rarely face the death penalty, if you are poor or a minority you are much more likely to face the death penalty for exactly the same crime and circumstances.

Re:What's the problem?

[Darinbob]

Revenge is a normal human emotion. However it is one that civilized societies try to diminish and that many major religions teach against (including evangelical hardcore conservative ones).

Re: What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad only one vein blew out...

Re: What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

No true Scotsman executes people either.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Death is not a deterrent.

In what fucking universe!? The only people that say this are either fucking idiots or liars. Even INSECTS try to avoid death. Are criminals more stupid than insects?

Re: What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

They use the untested cocktail instead of pentobarbital because the companies in Europe that make pentobarbital won't sell it to the U.S. any longer. They objected to the use of it in capital punishment. This was in the news a few months ago, sorry, I don't feel like locating a link for you. There was another inmate executed with an untested cocktail who took a long time to die and apparently appeared to be in great pain. I'm not sure why they don't just anesthetize the person and drain all their blood. It seems like it would work...

Re:What's the problem?

[thejuggler]

Until an autopsy is done there is no way to know if/why a vein burst. It may or may not have anything to do with the lethal injection drugs.

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

The problem is that higher incidence of revenge destroys modern society. That short "burst of lust" the many sadistic people experience when watching or committing revenge comes as a pretty steep price.

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

"Justice was served" is a pretext for those that are too dishonest or too cowardly to admit to liking revenge.

Re:What's the problem?

[Sloppy]

If people _are_ being executed the obviously someone did win the debate.

If people were never being executed, would you say the same thing? No matter what happens, or what fraction of the population is persuaded, someone is always a winner? What a nice "the glass is half-full" attitude! :-)

Re:What's the problem?

[X0563511]

That's all well and good, when you're not talking about people's lives.

Re:What's the problem?

[s.petry]

If people were not being executed legally of course I would not have the same words. The problem does not exist so why should it be discussed? At least until someone starts claiming that "So-and-So should die".

Morally speaking, how different is a person that kills someone robbing them and a doctor killing someone to get a paycheck? They both killed for money, so there is not a whole lot of moral difference between the two acts.

Re:What's the problem?

[Rich0]

Sorry, but you come across like a tad naive person. What do you mean 'then we rehabilitate them'?? How's this done??

For starters, people need to agree that this is the goal. We also have to agree that changing somebody's personality is ethically preferable to locking them up and letting them out just the way they already are.

Since we don't really take rehabilitation seriously I'm sure there is a lot that could be learned, probably for a lot less than we current spend on locking people up repeatedly.

In any case, I'm sure the solution would involve psychological conditioning and testing. You used the example of a muderer/rapist, so you start by understanding the urges that make the guy inclined to behave that way, and find a way to measure them. Then you condition them, likely by rewarding good reactions to stimuli, and negatively reinforcing undesirable reactions. That might be as little as giving/revoking privileges, or it might involve things like pain. Then you use technologies like fMRI/etc to detect how their brain reacts to stimuli to assess progress.

It is entirely possible that not everybody can be rehabilitated - they would basically end up being locked up or monitored for the rest of their lives. Others might be erroneously discharged from rehabilitation and end up committing a repeat offense. I don't think perfection needs to be achieved for this to be successful - the current process is incredibly broken and would not be difficult to improve upon.

In order for something like this to work we as a society need to get from a place where we accept prison rape but find brainwashing abhorrent, to the very opposite is true. I think that prison is an incredible waste of life. If shocking somebody for six months gets them to a point where they can be a happy and contributing member of society that employers can hire without fear of theft or an office shooting, then I think that this is better than giving them a bed to sleep on for 15 years and looking the other way when they misbehave as long as they don't bother any ordinary citizens.

Re:What's the problem?

[quantaman]

Of course I do consider that. I repeat, no system is perfect. There is far far more chance that someone who murders me or my family is brought to justice and put to death than the chance I or someone I love is wrongfully punished as you describe. Far greater.

Yes, I can live with that.

Killing is a moral outrage, particularly killing an innocent. If an individual murders an innocent member of your family than that one person is guilty of the crime, if the state murders an innocent member of your family than the entire justice system, and by extension society, is guilty of the crime.

The guilt is obviously much more dispersed, but I think it's an important point regardless. A government that commits unjust acts is a government that loses moral authority and destabilizes the underlying society. Don't you think a lot of African Americans realize that the government is executing a lot of innocent black people? Surely that plays some small part in their adversarial relationship with police.

What about the message executions send to society? "Killing is wrong" becomes "killing is good if the person really deserves it", murderers aren't bizarre aliens, they're the tail end of a normal distribution of violence. Anytime you shift the mean you're going to see an effect at the tails.

Re:What's the problem?

[Sabriel]

How many do you think would still take that 4% chance if the law was, "you get to decide, but if we later discover it was the wrong guy, you will be executed too"?

Re:What's the problem?

[amiga3D]

I don't know. If someone rapes my daughter then slits her throat and throws her lifeless body in a ditch, is that the same thing as my putting a bullet in his head when I find him after he's "rehabilitated" and free a year or two later? I think not and most of society thinks not as well. To the law it's the same but if the law doesn't do it's job that's what will start to happen. Either give people justice or they'll take it.

Re:What's the problem?

[amiga3D]

I think a lot of them.

Re:What's the problem?

[shutdown -p now]

No, he's not an exception, as evidenced by all the countries who have banned capital punishment - with wide popular support for such a ban - for the exact reasons that he states.

I wholeheartedly agree with him, too. Life sentence is really a harsh enough punishment for any crime - harsher, in fact, than death. Yet it also has the added benefit of being able to correct a miscarriage of justice, at least to some extent. It's a win-win.

Re:What's the problem?

[shutdown -p now]

No, the alternative says that the criminal should be punished in such a way that, if he later turns out to be innocent, we have a reasonable chance of correcting that injustice. Death penalty is on the extreme edge of the spectrum on this - you can't really do much when all you have is a corpse.

Hence why life imprisonment is infinitely preferable to death penalty for any crime.

Re:What's the problem?

[shutdown -p now]

Some people, you can't "rehabilitate". Some people (like Lockett), you don't even want to try. You just want them out of the picture.

Sure, and prison does that just fine.

And put bluntly, life in prison costs too much - Scum like this doesn't deserve room, board, and free cable on the taxpayers' dime for life.

It costs too much only when they're actually guilty. And in every case, there is a chance that the person charged is not actually guilty, however small. Taken in aggregate, the cost of sticking them into prison indefinitely is the price we pay for being able to at least partially fix the injustice when someone is eventually found innocent. Do you think it is a large price to pay for an innocent life saved?

They deserve... Well, they deserve worse than he got, but we compromise with our squeamishness about actually giving his victims justice by trying to put them down more-or-less peacefully.

That's funny. You start from a purely utilitarian, "I just want them out of the picture" argument, and very quickly arrive at apologetics of torture killing to satisfy your sense of revenge (it's not justice, don't lie to yourself).

Re:What's the problem?

[bingoUV]

You'd need to treat them until they no longer like these sorts of things, however long that takes.

Been reading too much science fiction? Such a "treatment" is exactly that - fiction. A "test" to figure out what a person likes, is a fantasy.

What if they don't want to be rehabilitated?

Non-cooperation with the rehabilitation program would be cause to lock you up until you cooperate.

Why would they not "cooperate", at least apparently? Sociopaths can be legendary actors. Though one good effect of this policy will be that there will be a great evolutionary pressure on humans to be better actors. Hollywood will thank you.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Put up or shut up.

And I note that the comment I was speaking of - at the time modded a -1 is now a +3, I am glad of this as I was trying to make an honest sincere point. It seems that not all around here are intellectually lazy.

Oh and by the way, your comment is the textbook definition of intellectually lazy.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I am against the death penalty, my scientific view suggests that we have to consider the possibility that some of those exonerated were actually guilty. I don't know what that percentage would be and would guess that it's small, but it really ought to be measured before stating with certainty that the 4.1% represents a lower bound of those on death row who are innocent of the charges that put them there.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

"if the state murders an innocent member of your family than the entire justice system, and by extension society, is guilty of the crime."

If the state executes a man according to the law and in a case where due process has been served, this is not murder. I suggest you look up the word, it does not mean what you think it means.

"Don't you think a lot of African Americans realize that the government is executing a lot of innocent black people? Surely that plays some small part in their adversarial relationship with police."

This is a complex question. No doubt there are more cases of innocent black people suffering punishment at the hands of the state, I find this abhorrent in every way, and truth be told race has fuck all to do with it; if an innocent man is being punished for a crime he did not commit this is a "bad thing". That said, we still, as a society, need to investigate, try, convict and punish those who would do evil, and in doing so we will sometimes make mistakes as we are men. We can of course strive to make these systems better.

That said, black people commit more crimes per capita as compared to other groups. This isn't right or wrong on its face, and I am not speaking to the cause of this condition, but it is a fact. Are you saying this is all caused at root by society wrongfully convicting some men? That's absurd. The one really has nothing to do with the other at all.

"murderers aren't bizarre aliens"

Of course they are not aliens. But they are murderers. And the crimes some men commit are so terrible, so inhuman, so bad that we as a society have decided that the men who commit these crimes need to be executed. Not all societies make this decision, but in this case they have. If you don't like this you are certainly free to voice that opinion, attempt to convince others of your view, or even move to a place where this isn't done. You may not like this, but it is what it is.

Re:What's the problem?

[quantaman]

"if the state murders an innocent member of your family than the entire justice system, and by extension society, is guilty of the crime."

If the state executes a man according to the law and in a case where due process has been served, this is not murder. I suggest you look up the word, it does not mean what you think it means.

The definition is irrelevant to my point. If the state killed a friend or relative you believed to be innocent you would have a major grievance with the state. If you realize the state would punish you more harshly because of your background or the colour of your skin you would again have a big problem.

"Don't you think a lot of African Americans realize that the government is executing a lot of innocent black people? Surely that plays some small part in their adversarial relationship with police."

This is a complex question. No doubt there are more cases of innocent black people suffering punishment at the hands of the state, I find this abhorrent in every way, and truth be told race has fuck all to do with it; if an innocent man is being punished for a crime he did not commit this is a "bad thing". That said, we still, as a society, need to investigate, try, convict and punish those who would do evil, and in doing so we will sometimes make mistakes as we are men. We can of course strive to make these systems better.

That said, black people commit more crimes per capita as compared to other groups. This isn't right or wrong on its face, and I am not speaking to the cause of this condition, but it is a fact.

That blacks generally receive harsher punishments for the same crimes, including execution, is generally accepted, and research indicates race does play into it.

Are you saying this is all caused at root by society wrongfully convicting some men? That's absurd. The one really has nothing to do with the other at all.

I'd think I answered that question when I stated "Surely that plays some small part in their adversarial relationship with police."

"murderers aren't bizarre aliens"

Of course they are not aliens. But they are murderers. And the crimes some men commit are so terrible, so inhuman, so bad that we as a society have decided that the men who commit these crimes need to be executed. Not all societies make this decision, but in this case they have. If you don't like this you are certainly free to voice that opinion, attempt to convince others of your view, or even move to a place where this isn't done. You may not like this, but it is what it is.

You miss my point entirely. By normalizing and justifying killing you make society as a whole more violent, as as murderers come from society you are likely to create more murderers. And I do live in a place where executions are not done, and I'm quite happy to live there.

Re:What's the problem?

[jandersen]

With a mindset like yours, it doesn't seem all that unlikely that you might one day be on the receiving end of the penal process. Perhaps you would see things differently, then?

Now, to elaborate on the subject of torturing people - criminals or not - to death: Historically, it was the norm to execute prisoners with prolonged torture, but this is something we as a society have moved away from. Not just because we have become more humane, but also because it has no effect on the rate of crime - on the contrary. When punishments are regarded as unfair, people will turn against society and will feel justified in taking extreme action against their perceived enemies; society can only develop in a positive way if people feel they can trust the institutions of society: government, the court, the police etc.

There is a huge grin on my face right now. Knowing it pisses you off even makes me happier.

Really? I have to disappoint you, then; my reaction is not one of anger, but pity. You are such a sad person.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Ah, that's a nice argument but you're dealing with the proportionality problem. If there's a group that will be exonerated falsely, they'll be coming as a fraction from that 4.1%, and if there's a group that is failed to be exonerated ever, they're coming from the remaining 95.9% of those executed. And a small fraction of the latter rapidly outpaces a large fraction of the former.

Re:What's the problem?

[TheCarp]

Who needs "studies" when you have "stories". sounds totally legit, kill someone now and again and people fall in line. Who needs trials and appeals and evidence? Fuck that shit.

Re:What's the problem?

[Wookact]

If you get enjoyment out of someone dying anywhere anyhow, then you are one sick puppy. Note: I am not saying that the death penalty might not be needed in some cases, but enjoying it? No, it is a dirty job, and someone has to do it, but enjoying it or even worse enjoying the fact that it was drawn out and painful. Thats just sick.

Re:What's the problem?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Don't hurt yourself climbing down from that soap box. Revenge is when it's personal. Justice is when the criminal system issues its sentence after all the evidence is reviewed with an impartial jury.

Re:What's the problem?

[cusco]

In all the historical reading that I've done over the years I have found only two societies that were essentially crime-free; the Inca and medieval Japan. In both the penalty for pretty much all lawbreaking was death, delivered swiftly and without appeal. Got any contrary evidence?

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, often with "life imprisonment", there is the chance someone can come along years later, decide that life imprisonment is too awful a punishment and let the person out. Or they find Jesus and get paroled. Or they get old and everyone feels sorry for them. Or any number of things that lead to life not being life
Standards change.
The one argument I've never seen in favor of the death penalty is that we are applying our current standards permanently.
And I'm sorry, there are cases where, as a whole, I feel the death penalty is appropriate, and the defendant would be a bad influence on others in prison.
Say really evil person is in prison, life without parole.
What's to stop him from randomly shanking fellow inmates if he wants, especially weaker ones server short sentences? It's not like he'll get a more severe punishment. Put him in solitary, you say? They're already arguing that is itself cruel and unusual punishment, and I'd tend to agree.People go crazy when isolated.

Re:What's the problem?

[kaatochacha]

However...How many orcs did Gandalf end up killing?

Re:What's the problem?

[shutdown -p now]

The one argument I've never seen in favor of the death penalty is that we are applying our current standards permanently.

And that is a good thing why, exactly? Our standards also change for a reason...

Put him in solitary, you say? They're already arguing that is itself cruel and unusual punishment, and I'd tend to agree. People go crazy when isolated.

As someone said in another thread, give them a choice. Put them into solitary, but give them an option of voluntarily choosing death - euthanasia. This sidesteps the issue of whether one is more cruel and unusual than another, while still giving someone who was not validly convicted a chance if they are willing to take it.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with your rehabilitation idea.
However, my idea of rehabilitation is a bullet to the head.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not arguing that there's a high likelihood that people are incorrectly exonerated. Indeed, there would need to be a significantly asymmetric effect in order to favor the defendant on average. For example, the "reasonable doubt" standard favors the defendant in the original trial. If a similar standard is used for overturning a conviction (or just the sentencing), this could favor the defendant and increase the "false exoneration" count. My gut feeling is that this is not the case, but a thorough analysis of the issue would need to take it into consideration. It's possible the study you alluded to already makes the attempt to do this. Note that I'm just playing devil's advocate here to introduce some skepticism that I expect to strengthen arguments based on this sort of analysis.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The opponents of the death penalty won't allow this, or the myriad of other simple, effective and painless methods.
They WANT suffering, spectacle, people writhing and having seizures
It shows the inhumanity of the process and justifies their " it's barbaric!" beliefs.

Re:What's the problem?

[kaatochacha]

I've got a friend in Australia who I've known for upwards of twenty years. Recently I learned that she believed that everyone in the US drives around with a gun in their car, and most people carry them everywhere.
I found this out when she asked where in my car I keep my gun.
Misinformation is everywhere.

Re:What's the problem?

[i kan reed]

Sure, but I'm not the original researchers, and I'm not in a position to do any sort of more detailed analyses of the available data. I was just asserting that the methods had a theoretical soundness that "4.1%" wasn't just a guess like the poster flinging absurd assertions wanted it to be.

Re:What's the problem?

[kaatochacha]

I'm curious: Do the studies that account for race disparities in sentencing take into account economics as well?
In other words, are poor black and rich black lumped into the same group?

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

Another incarnation of said pretext. Revenge is when it is sadism. "Justice" is a purely artificial construct that serves to disguise what is happening. Just look at this whole discussion here to find countless instances of people enjoying that somebody was hurt and killed. It does not get any clearer than this without them actually forming a lynch-mob.

Re:What's the problem?

[MutualFun]

"Oklahoma killed a monster today. No moral issues apply."

Strangely enough I both agree and disagree, on different grounds. First, if someone murdered one of my family members, I would personally want revenge. It might get *me* the death penalty, but I would want the criminal to pay. But my own feelings are not the same as what society may want or need. All I can think of, and feel free to ridicule, is that if we *ever* hope to have world peace (or whirled peas) then we need to stop killing our fellow citizens. We will never advance as a culture if we keep up the cycle of killing. The continuation of the death penalty makes us so much like the countries listed above that still have the death penalty, whom all share a couple of things in common: they are most all considered repressive regimes AND they kill each other in the name of justice.

And for those who are more pragmatic about the costs, putting aside the moral issues altogether, if you truly want to save some cash, stop killing prisoners.
"Each death penalty case in Texas costs taxpayers about $2.3 million. That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. ("Executions Cost Texas Millions," Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)."

Yes, I do feel somewhat out of place here in Texas, even though a native. Will we still have heinous crimes committed by murderous crazies? Probably for awhile, until we get that darn universal health care implemented, including mental health coverage. But until then, I just don't see how we can ever hope to have the kind of cooperative, collaborative civilization I read about as a teenager (and still once in awhile as an adult) in Science Fiction.

Re:What's the problem?

[TheCarp]

No I have other values than living in some crime-free dystopia.

Re: What's the problem?

[ilsaloving]

Considering that they already have drugs that have been properly tested and (presumably) work, I have absolutely no idea....

There's clearly something serious going on under the radar that they don't want us to know about. There's no other reason why they would try so hard to keep people away.

Re:What's the problem?

[wonkey_monkey]

There is no arbiter doling out just desserts

Nor, indeed, deserts (as in, things you deserve - from the same root).

Re:What's the problem?

[avgjoe62]

Apples and oranges - there is a difference between killing those that you are certain beyond any doubt are trying to kill you and killing those that you are sure only beyond a reasonable doubt killed someone else.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am vampire.

I kneel before no other creature.

Until we tell your dad that you have been using his computer. Scram, asswipe!

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what I get out of a murderer suffering in agony? You know what amazing benefit society at large gains?
Nothing. Nothing at all.

Maybe if they filmed it and put it on youtube, society would at least gain some entertainment value.

If I'm not mistaken, the taliban have filmed some executions which should more than satisfy your lust for blood (and entertainment). I won't bother posting links. (Hell, I'm not even going to try looking for any links. Go find your own links, doofus!

Re:What's the problem?

[Rich0]

Been reading too much science fiction? Such a "treatment" is exactly that - fiction. A "test" to figure out what a person likes, is a fantasy.

Nobody has really tried to come up with a rehabilitation program, so it is a bit early to give up. Of course, even researching such a program would probably be illegal currently, so things have to change before there can be any progress.

What if they don't want to be rehabilitated?

Non-cooperation with the rehabilitation program would be cause to lock you up until you cooperate.

Why would they not "cooperate", at least apparently? Sociopaths can be legendary actors. Though one good effect of this policy will be that there will be a great evolutionary pressure on humans to be better actors. Hollywood will thank you.

Such a rehabilitation program would necessitate having a test that did not depend on voluntary/conscious cooperation. It would be necessary to be able to detect acting. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be possible.

Re:What's the problem?

[Rich0]

I don't know. If someone rapes my daughter then slits her throat and throws her lifeless body in a ditch, is that the same thing as my putting a bullet in his head when I find him after he's "rehabilitated" and free a year or two later?

If he actually has been rehabilitated, then, yes. Actually, even if he hasn't been rehabilitated your actions aren't justified unless they are in self-defense.

I think not and most of society thinks not as well. To the law it's the same but if the law doesn't do it's job that's what will start to happen.

Sure, most of society is as sick as you are. I'm under no illusions that there would actually be reform.

Either give people justice or they'll take it.

Consider carefully what you're suggesting. I think your attitude is unjust. Does that mean that I would be justified in taking it upon myself to pass judgment upon you?

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe your post did an excellent job providing support for your position, and no more was necessary in this context. I didn't intend to imply that I expected you to have an answer to the point I raised. I just brought it up as an interesting possibility to consider.

Re:What's the problem?

[amiga3D]

I think the government is supposed to do it's damn job so it doesn't come to that. That's the social contract right? We give up the right of justice to the government. When the legal system becomes a ridiculous tragedy then the social contract breaks down. No, I don't want to take a gun and go get justice for my family. Maybe the way things go it'll come to that though. You seem to think it's okay for people to rape and kill and never pay a price for that behavior. I say there must be consequences for the perpetrators. If you think that's sick then so be it. You are entitled to your opinion.

Re:What's the problem?

[bingoUV]

Willing participants are having trouble modifying their behaviour with best of today's medicine and counseling. See relapse rate of psychological counseling and psychiatric treatment. What makes you think we have a chance with potentially unwilling subjects?

We don't have to waste money in "research". Let willing patients succeed first. Alchemy has a better future than your ideas.

Re:What's the problem?

[Pseudonym]

I fail to understand why "throw away the key" is not serving "justice". Who is this "justice", and why does he or she demand human sacrifice? Are you afraid that the crops will be spoiled if the evildoer is not removed?

Re:What's the problem?

[Pseudonym]

You raise a good point, which is that capital punishment is only one of the aspects of the US crime industry which is completely messed up. Elected judges, elected prosecutors, plea bargains, and grand juries are other anachronisms which most countries have never had, or have abolished because they are not considered just.

Re:What's the problem?

[bingoUV]

Morally speaking, how different is a person that kills someone robbing them and a doctor killing someone to get a paycheck? They both killed for money, so there is not a whole lot of moral difference between the two acts.

By the principle of diminishing marginal utility, the one who has less money overall is less guilty. It may or may not be straightforward to figure who has "less money".

Re:What's the problem?

[dhell]

The victim's family is happy the fucker's gone. As a taxpayer, I say "Money well spent".

Re:What's the problem?

[Sloppy]

Morally speaking, how different is a person that kills someone robbing them and a doctor killing someone to get a paycheck? They both killed for money, so there is not a whole lot of moral difference between the two acts.

Plenty of murders happen simply because "damn Vikings, moving into the neighborhood and lowering property values" or because "if I can't have you, no one can" or because someone was snorin' too loud or because that little voice in my head that usually just whispers "...be an asshole .. one-up all their anecdotes .. make backhanded comments about things they care about ..." whenever I meet someone, starts whispering "... kill them .. make it look like an accident, maybe involving the microwave oven and nondairy creamer .. no one will suspect..." instead. These people are still going to be considered murderers, even if unprofessional, and plenty of 'em, pro-DPers will still want executed.

Similarly, suppose the state sentences someone to die and calls for unpaid volunteer executioners. You know someone will come forth, willing to do the job. The state might even be able to charge them (it's easy to imagine a lottery, for certain high-profile cases.). Yet I doubt many anti-DPers will be any more accepting of the death sentence.

I don't think taking money out of it, is going to sway many people in either direction. If it does the job for you (and no, I don't seriously think that was your point) then you'd be in the minority. The debate would continue on, still never won by anyone. It ain't about the money.

Re:What's the problem?

[Rich0]

Willing participants are having trouble modifying their behaviour with best of today's medicine and counseling. See relapse rate of psychological counseling and psychiatric treatment. What makes you think we have a chance with potentially unwilling subjects?

We don't have to waste money in "research". Let willing patients succeed first. Alchemy has a better future than your ideas.

Well, if it doesn't work, then keep them locked up until it does. I'm not suggesting that we should turn criminals loose.

However, it is probably worth noting that mental health issues get second-class treatment at least in the US. They aren't treated like real medical issues for the most part, and treatments are usually limited to a few pills that are fairly indiscriminate in their impact. I'd think that for somebody with deep-seated problems that we'd probably need to use methods that would be outright illegal today. You can't just take prisoners and subject them to torture while showing them pictures of suffering people until they start to shake every time somebody stubs their toe. I'd like to hope that there are less drastic measures that would also work, but while I'm no fan of subjecting prisoners to pain, I don't think that what we do with them already is in any way superior.

Re:What's the problem?

[Rich0]

You seem to think it's okay for people to rape and kill and never pay a price for that behavior. I say there must be consequences for the perpetrators. If you think that's sick then so be it. You are entitled to your opinion.

And hence there will not be reform unless there is a big change in society. Your opinion is clearly shared by a large majority of Americans.

I don't see why people who commit bad acts need to pay a price for their behavior. People who are prone to rape and kill need to be changed so that they are no longer prone to doing these things. That should happen whether or not they've actually raped or killed anybody, and they shouldn't be let out on the street until we're fairly confident that they have in fact been fixed.

The current system is a catch and release program where people do bad things, then get locked up so that we can feel good about getting revenge, and then at some point they're usually let back out so that they can do more bad things. People who commit really serious crimes usually aren't let back out, so we just pay to feed them for the rest of their lives.

In the future I'd rather see, people wouldn't murder each other in the first place, and when they do for whatever reason, then they'd be turned into model citizens who won't murder anybody else again, and they could start paying back society by contributing positively. If people have your attitude towards the matter, that could be fixed as well.

Re:What's the problem?

[amiga3D]

I think that's an interesting fantasy world. All you need to do is change human behavior.

By the way, have you ever seen the movie "A Clockwork Orange?"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

If you haven't you should check it out.

Re:What's the problem?

[Rich0]

I think that's an interesting fantasy world. All you need to do is change human behavior.

Sure, but just about everything in our lives today was nothing but fantasy at some point in the past, often in the not-so-distant past. Not all that long ago all the experts would have told you that Apple had already proven that nobody wants to buy a consumer tablet computer.

The first step to changing things is to recognize that what we're doing today isn't the best way that things could be done. That doesn't mean tearing down prisons over night, but it does mean that we can start taking steps to fix things.

Somehow Europe isn't full of mass-murderers, and they manage to get by spending far less than the US on their prison system.

There isn't anything magical about the human brain. It is finite and governed by the laws of physics, and therefore it can be understood. It might take time to get there, but today we aren't really even trying.

Re:What's the problem?

[bingoUV]

Americans do keep convicts locked for a very long time in the hope they'll improve. Since there's no way to figure out if they have improved, convicts are set loose when "society" gets tired of waiting.

Your suggestion amounts to basing the whole tenure of a convict on the "knowledge" that he will not commit similar crimes henceforth, when there is no way to acquire said knowledge. Why do you love movies so much that in order to improve them you're ready to endanger so many people?

OR your statement "until it does", amounts to locking every petty criminal indefinitely since there is no way to figure out "if it did". You might as well declare 50 states to be 50 prisons and get on with life.

Second class treatment ? Sometimes more knowledge leads to less respect for a subject. Respect for alchemy has dropped million fold in hundreds of years.

Re:What's the problem?

[ComputersKai]

Except the loss of a person that could have potentially been rehabilitated into a productive member of society.

Re:What's the problem?

[Rich0]

Your suggestion amounts to basing the whole tenure of a convict on the "knowledge" that he will not commit similar crimes henceforth, when there is no way to acquire said knowledge.

That's quite a claim. Do you have any proof to back it up? You're suggesting that there is a whole realm of technological advancement which will never progress.

Sure, nobody has figured it out yet, but it is quite a leap to go from that to a declaration that nobody will ever figure it out. Recognizing the superiority of a system based on rehabilitation does not mean that we have to pretend that we've actually figured out how to do it.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. The President can exempt anyone from any inconvenient laws. If you prefer to look at it another way, no one will be allowed to sue the government for torturing prisoners to death because the only people with legal standing would be the dead prisoners! Hey, it worked in California!

Re:What's the problem?

[bingoUV]

I didn't say it will never progress. But the progress isn't in sight. And we'll know when it is, by improvement in results of willing patients.

World financial system is quite dependent on alchemy not being fruitful in the foreseeable future, but economists don't say, or even assume that it will never be fruitful. Elementary changes to atoms are possible. Temporary behavior modification of willing patients is possible.

Re:What's the problem?

[bingoUV]

Btw "there is no way" doesn't mean "there will never be a way".

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans do keep convicts locked for a very long time in the hope they'll improve. Since there's no way to figure out if they have improved, convicts are set loose when "society" gets tired of waiting.

The American approach of forcing a bunch of criminals to live together without real help or guidance on how to improve and just hoping they will get better instead of teaching each other commit more crimes is kind of like locking a fat person in a room full of unhealthy food and hoping they will come out thin.

You can hope your chosen course of action will work all you like, but that doesn't mean it is the right way to achieve your goals.

Your suggestion amounts to basing the whole tenure of a convict on the "knowledge" that he will not commit similar crimes henceforth, when there is no way to acquire said knowledge. Why do you love movies so much that in order to improve them you're ready to endanger so many people?

You may not be able to tell when an individual has improved enough to be safe to be let out, but you can study and implement the methods produce the greatest decrease in the rates of recidivism. And at some point we may actually be able to tell with a high degree of certainty when people are ready, it may never be a cast iron guarantee, but we can do a damn sight better than we do today.

Re:What's the problem?

[bingoUV]

You may not be able to tell when an individual has improved enough to be safe to be let out, but you can study and implement the methods produce the greatest decrease in the rates of recidivism. And at some point we may actually be able to tell with a high degree of certainty when people are ready, it may never be a cast iron guarantee, but we can do a damn sight better than we do today[citation needed]

You can hope your chosen course of action will work all you like, but that doesn't mean it is the right way to achieve your goals.

Re:What's the problem?

[ttucker]

Oh and by the way, your comment is the textbook definition of intellectually lazy.

Kind of like basing your entire argument on an ad hominem fallacy? You are a brilliant satire of something, almost amusing to read.

Re:What's the problem?

[ttucker]

And that is a good thing why, exactly? Our standards also change for a reason.

It used to be reasonable to burn someone alive for resembling, or supposedly resembling, a fictional character in literature.

Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

He shot someone and watched as his two friends buried her ALIVE. 20 minutes of semi-conscious agony ending in a heartattack vs. breathing dirt. You decide...

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Maury Markowitz]

> 20 minutes of semi-conscious agony ending in a heart attack vs. breathing dirt

False dichotomy. Everyone reading this would not be effected by either, as long as he's behind bars.

Cue the madding crowds telling me why I'm wrong to hold my opinion

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[binarylarry]

He also raped her friend that tagged along with her.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[addie]

The punishment should be proportional to the crime, but does not need to mirror it. An eye for an eye is a bit outdated, no? If capital punishment is to be used, it should be done in a way that is neither cruel nor unusual - that's the law, until a jurisdiction collectively decides otherwise.

Breaking our laws to punish those who broke our laws: this may be widespread and socially acceptable to some people, but that doesn't make it right. If you want someone to be tortured to death, then seek a change in the law.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you fail to see justice is not about revenge.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying a justice system shouldn't try to be any better than criminals?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

So you have no sense of justice then.
I can not say if you are wrong or right. I can only say you do not posses any sense of justice.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[i kan reed]

Some people think that the justice systems' job is the arbiter of karma, rather than preventing crime. I've not discovered a way to discuss these things with the former group. I'm not sure what you can tell that kind of person.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Zironic]

Generally when we as a society decide that we do not torture criminals to death, it is not because we don't feel the criminals deserve it, but rather that we as a society are better then that.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[i kan reed]

Did you know that in many countries, sentences are served simultaneously, rather than consecutively?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[OzPeter]

He shot someone and watched as his two friends buried her ALIVE. 20 minutes of semi-conscious agony ending in a heartattack vs. breathing dirt. You decide...

So you condone torture?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[acidradio]

We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive. Tell me how that doesn't affect us. A death-row inmate costs, what, $50-75-100K/yr to house and feed? We get no value from this. This is akin to toxic waste disposal. How many doctors, teachers, scientists can we hire for the amount of money we pay to house these people? How much further would we be as a society if we spent the money on getting ahead, not waste disposal?

I'm sure I will get an argument that "All the appeals that death row inmates use before being put to death cost more than just imprisoning them for life!" Maybe if we cleaned up our unnecessarily exhaustive legal process that has basically become a job program this wouldn't be an issue.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Chrisq]

So you're saying a justice system shouldn't try to be any better than criminals?

Agree. This is the slippery slope that leads to barbaric systems like Sharia, with stoning for adultery, death for professing belief in other religions, and so on.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

It's out of fairness. People should not be allowed to be evil and get away with it gracefully. Otherwise, you just encouraged a "fuck you, I can do what I want and get off easy" mentality. People need to fear the ramifications of being evil fucking asshole.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[acidradio]

You're absolutely right. Proportional. He raped, tortured and murdered. So what is proportional to rape, tortured and murdered?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[moronoxyd]

It is not justice if somebody is been given the death penalty and then gets 45 minutes of torture on top.

There is a reason torture (or cruel and unusual punishment) is not legal. If we treat criminals not better then they treated their victims we're not better than they are.

As a society we should strife to be better than our criminals and not hide our own cruelty behind words like justice and punishment.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think people should be able to commit two crimes for the price of one.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[91degrees]

It's hard to argue with someone who disagrees on such a fundeental point. However, I always thought Tolkein (through Gandalf) put it quite well:

Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Charliemopps]

So, the standard philosophical counterargument is "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" but I suspect that despite the fact that the edgucated world as a whole had already resolved that capital punishment is immoral over a thousand years ago, you'll continue to lack empathy for those you feel "don't deserve it" so I'll argue from your point of view.

Lets make several points so you can disagree with them directly if you feel you need to:
1. Capital punishment costs orders of magnitude more money than Life in prison. The trials have to be rigorous, and therough, we have to be absolutely sure of the defendants guilt before we execute them. They get guarenteed retrials and the evidence has to be air tight. As a result, capital punishement trials costs states many millions of dollars each.
2. Murder trials are very difficult on the victims family. In order to get a conviction the prosecution needs to present very gory details, interview the family on the stand in depth, etc...
3. Prison is worse than death.

So, if you want to save money, save the family grief, and punish the prisoner in pretty much the worst method available legally, let him rot in prison for the rest of his life. You don't even need to be an ethical person to know that it's the right thing to do from every perspective. When even the catholic church things what you're doing is too barbaric, you know you're doing something wrong.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[SJHillman]

And then are they released on double secret probation?

Simultaneously serving multiple sentences doesn't really make logical sense if they're being imprisoned 24/7 for the duration of their sentence. It's not like they can be imprisoned for 48 hours a day to serve two sentences simultaneously. What you're effectively doing is just having them serve one sentence and dropping the rest, not having them served simultaneously.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[sabre_13]

The criminals involved had no concern over the victims. They didn't ensure they had a comfortable safe end to their life, they most likely died in horrible trauma or worse. Should this individuals have died in a calm and wonderful way so he had no suffering....I'm sure that would be for the best, no one planned this, it just happened, do I feel for their family; Yes. Do I feel for the criminal: no his fate played out as it was planned.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[SJHillman]

From my understanding, a week with Slashdot Beta should about do it.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[OzPeter]

We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive.

And carrying out a death penalty also has it's costs. Take a read of costs death penalty. (I may be cherry picking a bit here but) From that article it was estimated that California could save $170 million a year by commuting al death sentences to life in prison.

So do you want to pay more or less taxes?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[cheetah_spottycat]

Well, if you want to go full-on medieval, let's do it properly and just implent the sharia. Slowly poisoning someone to death ... or stoning them. What is the difference? Yes, the stoning is the more honest option.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[delt0r]

Yea because otherwise everyone will be evil. I mean its lucky the US has the death penalty because it has deterred so many of the evil fucking people. Oh wait, the US has one of the worse rates of violent crime. States with the death penalty don't have less of this crime. It is not a preventive nor a deterrent.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[i kan reed]

Honestly... I don't think you'll ever "pay off" intentionally harming another person(unless the harm is strictly financial). Which, to me, makes the question become "What else can be achieved through the prison system?"

Does rehabilitation require longer sentences for multiple crimes? Does deterrence play that large a role in exactly how serious a crime people are willing commit?

I think the actual observational evidence I've seen says: "No, but a system to retain unreformed criminals makes sense" and "No, people aren't concerned with degree of consequences when committing serious crimes." But I welcome new information regarding these points, it's good to learn from being wrong..

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[JerryLove]

We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive. Tell me how that doesn't affect us. A death-row inmate costs, what, $50-75-100K/yr to house and feed? We get no value from this. This is akin to toxic waste disposal. How many doctors, teachers, scientists can we hire for the amount of money we pay to house these people? How much further would we be as a society if we spent the money on getting ahead, not waste disposal

There are approximately 3,000 people on death row. I would imagine a liberal estimate, if we never killed any, would put mayby 10,000 people that might otherwise, eventually, be executed in prison for life.

As of 2011, there were 2,300,000 people in pirson.

So to answer your question as a percentage: We could save less than 00.5% of our prison budget... assuming executations themselves add $0 cost to the process, and assuming that those executions were carried out before even the trial happened. If you have trials, and waits, and there's a cost to the execution: we save less still.

And remember: these are based on grossly liberal estimates. If I just use current numbers, the savings is closer to 00.1% before lowerign it further with execution costs.

How about you drop the pretense that the issue is cost?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Alomex]

I'm glad to see that you make this important moral decision about right and wrong come to dollars and cents. Sounds right to me.... NOT!

Re: Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

No we decide it because it was an issue of the time. Like being forced to quarter troops.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[dfenstrate]

> 20 minutes of semi-conscious agony ending in a heart attack vs. breathing dirt

False dichotomy. Everyone reading this would not be effected by either, as long as he's behind bars.

Cue the madding crowds telling me why I'm wrong to hold my opinion

He'd still be there to torment his prison guards and fellow inmates. The decline of the death penalty matches up nicely with the rise in supermax prisons.

Everyone who brings up your line of logic imagines that the most base, vicious members of society will sit in prison for the rest of their days reading books and reflecting on their life's choices. It isn't so.

Take a good look at how these life sentence crooks entertain themselves when they have nothing to look forward to but decades of confinement. Then decide if you still think lifetime imprisonment is irrelevant to the living, and to lesser criminals.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

because the actions of a legally constituted government should be equivalent to those of a criminal?

I mean it is all about one-for-one retribution, correct?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[i kan reed]

You're trying to pretend that time in jail = some cosmic debt owed.

The countries that have this different system, don't take that perspective.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally when we as a society decide that we do not torture criminals to death, it is not because we don't feel the criminals deserve it, but rather that we as a society are better then that.

So what you're saying is that once society improves, we can start torturing criminals?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Extremus]

That cost, even if it is correct, it is negligible in the face of: (a) the risk of murdering innocents, when other methods of containment exist; (b) the shame of being one of only developed countries in the world that still implement archaic methods of containment; and (c) the fact that this sort of person and his mental condition is ultimately a result of his own unfavorable context imposed by society.

Re: Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no disorder to torture murders to death. It is not nessasary. Ironicly it is those that think they can stop the death penalty by starving it of drugs that caused the situation.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[GameboyRMH]

Learn the difference between justice and vengeance.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[OzPeter]

Or beating people up because they are different Five Hasidic Jews Arrested for Williamsburg Attack on Gay Man

Or because they don't follow your rules Ultra-Orthodox Israeli couple sparks riot after telling woman to move to the back of a public bus

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[SJHillman]

No, I'm taking the perspective that "serving simultaneous sentences" doesn't make logical sense. You're not serving simultaneous sentences, you're serving one sentence (presumably the longest or harshest one) and having the rest dropped.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[bluefoxlucid]

It's more complex than that.

You face many concerns considering legal punishment: deterrent effect, risk of harm to innocents, and direct impact of punishment, to name three. These depend largely on the crime, the punishment, and the surrounding culture.

The deterrent effect, for example, has two major factors: perceived severity of the punishment and perceived threat of punishment. A weak punishment, colloquially a "slap on the wrist", carries little deterrent effect; a strong punishment carries high deterrent effect. A punishment lacks threat if it is unlikely to actually occur.

The strength of punishment comes from perception: jail time, pain, execution, fines, and how much the individual fear these personally. Some individuals do not fear prison; others fear it a lot. The poor fear fines more than the rich. Death almost universally incites terror. Pain is unpleasant, but imprisonment may destabilize personal security and provide greater fear.

Punishment carries threat when it is likely. The death penalty is a great example: in drug-riddled ghettos where criminal activity meets its abrupt end 99% by death and 1% by state execution, state execution carries no threat. In peaceful but armed suburbs, attacking someone may get you shot. Either way, someone will probably shoot you in the face before the state gets to you; if the police do catch you, they may simply provide a noose to save you from a bullet. In peaceful suburbs with low justifiable homicide rates, state action is the dominating outcome to murder; execution becomes a looming, subconscious threat.

Putting these together: the death penalty is a deterrent only where death is feared and state execution is a likely consequence of capital crime. In places where the criminal base is used to and does not fear death at a distance, state execution is a laughable thing; the first thing to consider is how to not get killed committing your crimes.

Once it's determined the deterrent effect, you have to consider other consequences. Fines and jail time can destroy lives. Executions kill people. If 4% of the executed are innocent, but executions provide such a deterrent effect as to stave off a hundred murders for each innocent executed, then that is unfortunate. If 4% of the executed are innocent, and executions provide no deterrent, then that is unacceptable.

And of course there are other considerations. I mentioned direct impact of punishment. You will want a punishment which rehabilitates criminals if repeat offense represents a larger proportion of the crime than the additional general deterrent from the next best method. Putting together further conditions, you can increase the severity of punishment as the risk of punishing innocents decreases (it's null if the punishments to innocents is dismissed on appeal 100% of the time before the time is served--increase punishment as much as you like). It gets extremely complex.

Justice is like sex: it feels good, but that doesn't make it wrong. Executing a man who stalks, rapes, and murders a woman feels immensely liberating to some; it is anxiolytic to a society who can distance themselves from the act of killing yet feel that they have participated in punishment. At the same time, such a man has earned his punishment. We may look down on people for enjoying vengeance, but we should not thus assume punishment is wrong.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[bluefoxlucid]

To be more correct, we feel that we should claim a moral superiority by deciding an action is wrong on arbitrary grounds.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[sleigher]

The judge can decide at sentencing whether multiple convictions can be served concurrently or consecutively.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[bluefoxlucid]

I condone the discomforting terror that sweeps a society when they see a despicable man brutalized by the sheer, violent unleash of hatred upon him for his terrible acts.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[i kan reed]

Oh, I guess I'm completely ignorant of my own justice system. Are there guidelines about when he should do which?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking someone's life through a death sentence or a whole-life prison term will never bring restoration to the family of the victim.

So do away with most whole-life sentences. Restore decent parole opportunities. That's what happens in almost every other civilized country, allowing almost all prisoners an opportunity to reform.

The rise in supermax prisons has way more to do with the potential profit for the commercial prison industry than it has to do with crime.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[i kan reed]

So... what exactly do you think those years are achieving?

Non-concurrent sentencing creates some weird artifacts.

Criminal A is involved in 2 bank heists that steal $10,500.
Criminal B is involved in one jewelry heist that steals $50,000

Criminal A gets 2 counts of grand theft, and a sentence twice as long as B who stole more.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Pumpkin Tuna]

I'm sure if you ever get "mistakenly" classified as toxic waste, you will continue to feel the same way.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Pumpkin Tuna]

I would posit that being locked away in a box with people as bad as me for the rest of my life is not "getting away with it gracefully."

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[FilmedInNoir]

I prefer people rot slowly in a concrete box for the rest of their lives... death is too easy, even a horrifically painful one.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[sleigher]

Honestly I am not sure. I think it is up to the judges discretion and is probably followed by the prosecutors suggestion. There are certainly some guidelines they must follow but who knows these days. The courts appear to whatever they heck they want so...

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, it got the job done in the end. I don't see how anyone can pity the guy after what he did. Just glad he is not going to get off easy by sitting in a jail cell for the rest of his life eating up tax payer dollars. He deserved some pain.

"we should be better then the criminal" is a nice book or movie saying, but in reality there has to be punishment that matches the unspeakable horror guys like this create, and putting them in a jail cell is not nearly enough.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[iksbob]

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[operagost]

No, you're not wrong to have an opinion-- it's just that your opinion might be wrong.

Stop acting like a victim just because people disagree with you. Is that an official logical fallacy? "Appeal to victimhood?"

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[operagost]

Don't make this about comparative religions.

Re: Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

B may have stolen more, but A committed twice as many crimes. The act of stealing is the crime more so than the actual amount stolen.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[hey!]

I decide that the state should display more dignity and decency than a callous murderer would.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be affected by him being behind bars. He was a terrible person, a menace to society, and my tax payer dollars would put a roof over his head and 3 square a day for the rest of his life. Now it doesn't. I'm sure his victim's family feels the same way. So would Locke and Hobbes, as this man completely violated the social contract that is inherent to the functioning of modern civil society, so he has been removed. There: your opinion is incorrect.

You're also wrong with "effected". Effected as a verb means to bring about. Affected means impacted or changed in some way.

"The hospital effected new processes that affected patient care positively."

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how it can cost so much to put someone to death. There are any number of ways to kill someone essentially for free. We manage to economically kill livestock in a manner that the public considers to be acceptable. These are people we as a society have decided have no further potential contribution to make, and are better off dead. Maybe some think we should keep them locked up for life to "make them sorry" for what they did. I don't know if that works or not, but I don't really see why it matters either way. They're not going to get out and start sweeping floors or changing oil, or anything else useful. So why should we feed and house them?

Maybe it's the appeals process that costs so much money. In that case, maybe a spending cap is in order (for both the prosecution and defense) to prevent some laser from taking heroic measures in court and sending the bill off to the taxpayers.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[addie]

Proportional means that someone who steals a car should get a proportionally more lenient sentence than someone who commits murder, but there must be a limit. Depending on jurisdiction, that limit is death or life in prison.

If you start taking proportional punishment too literally then we'll be setting up torture chambers instead of execution chambers, and intentionally keeping felons alive as they writhe in pain for days on end. If that's what you want, then that's your right. I'm personally glad society is moving away from that, not toward it.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Artifakt]

What amazes me is that it's mostly the right wing which supports even these violent and revengeful executions. These are the same people who claim to be for some sort of nebulously smaller government, but want to give some governments the position of monarchies - as in the King of Oklahoma's representitives can do no wrong and may deliberate in secret as the king wishes.
       

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

'cause otherwise, the killer state killing killers to teach that killing is wrong is so-o-o not hypocritical ! ! !

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[i kan reed]

As you went on describing those groups you got more and more fringe-right.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Shakrai]

but want to give some governments the position of monarchies

He was convicted and sentenced by a jury, the sentence was confirmed by a judge, the trial was reviewed by other judges, at multiple levels, all happening before the Governor decided to proceed with the execution. There's no monarchy here, and you can disagree with the death penalty without resorting to false comparisons.

Related opinion that's sure to make me popular: End the lethal injection nonsense and just shoot condemned criminals. It worked for Utah. It requires no medical personal to take part and violate their oath. It requires no sourcing of components from overseas trading partners that are anti death penalty. Being shot with a rifle is a damn near instant death and is a lot more humane than experimenting with drugs.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Bob9113]

He shot someone and watched as his two friends buried her ALIVE. 20 minutes of semi-conscious agony ending in a heartattack vs. breathing dirt.

Of course that is not beyond what he deserved. This is not about what he deserved. The reason we don't torture people is because only people who are mentally damaged, like him, do that to other people -- regardless of what they deserve. I am not mentally damaged, so I don't want to torture people, and won't have my state doing it in my name. Civilized people don't torture people to death. We take bad people and remove them from society, ashamed that they were once allowed to roam free, but not made worse by allowing blood lust to take our minds.

And if you are so inclined, you should seek help. If you're not going to do that, at least keep it to yourself. Pretend you're not a degenerate so you don't debase us as a society. Or, if you can't control it, at least have the decency to leave evidence when your monster drives you to some hideous act so we can catch you and put your deranged ass behind bars with the other animals.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[thedonger]

Citing data from a group funded by an anti-death penalty groups and individuals? Yeah, cherry picking just a bit.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[PhilHibbs]

And what about the 4%? Is that an acceptable attrition rate?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[thedonger]

How about you drop the pretense that the issue is cost?

So the main argument tossed about the media against the death penalty is about the cost. That argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so you say, Forget about cost because even if it costs less to execute people it represents such a tiny fraction of the overall cost. Except that doesn't stand up because your 3000 death row inmates represent between $150 and $300 million per year, so despite it being just a small percentage of the overall tab it is still not a small amount of money. Maybe we save that cash and throw it education or urban blight? You like those things, right?

Just be honest about your argument: You are against the death penalty because you are simply against it.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[mrchaotica]

Capital punishment costs orders of magnitude more money than Life in prison. The trials have to be rigorous, and therough, we have to be absolutely sure of the defendants guilt before we execute them.

That's exactly the same standard we're supposed to be using in non-capital cases too!

It is not valid for death sentences to cost more than life sentences. The real problem is that people aren't getting competent and thorough defenses in the initial trial. I would argue it's even more of an injustice for those receiving life sentences because, without the permanence of execution, the public sees it as less of a problem worth fixing.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[macromorgan]

Nothing is proportional to murder. That's what makes it such a terrible crime; there's really no way justice can ever be served since it's impossible to repay the cost of a human life. Some people try with the death penalty, but to me it just reeks of vengeance, not justice.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Charliemopps]

Capital punishment costs orders of magnitude more money than Life in prison. The trials have to be rigorous, and therough, we have to be absolutely sure of the defendants guilt before we execute them.

That's exactly the same standard we're supposed to be using in non-capital cases too!

It is not valid for death sentences to cost more than life sentences. The real problem is that people aren't getting competent and thorough defenses in the initial trial. I would argue it's even more of an injustice for those receiving life sentences because, without the permanence of execution, the public sees it as less of a problem worth fixing.

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing reality and not imaginary worlds where trials were always just and fair.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[oji-sama]

So... which one you consider has been decided to be wrong on arbitrary grounds? The crime (for example, torturing someone to death) that was committed for whatever reason, or torturing that person to death?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn the difference between justice and vengeance

That's a false dichotomy, dickwad. There is no law if there is no punishment for breaking the law -- otherwise, it's only a suggestion. There is no civilization if there is no law. The punishment should fit the crime. Your sense of "justice" was overwritten by an idiotic, retarded concept of equality that makes zero sense outside of Bizarro world. Don't worry, though, it's pretty common on the internet to be such a fuckup when it comes to these semantics.

Your weird, impossibly-stupid concept of justice illustrated outside of your ethereal bubble of stupidity:

He raped and killed an 11-year-old, therefore we must rape and kill him as an 11-year-old

That dog got loose and bit someone, so justice determines that someone must get loose and bite that dog

That kid stole gum from a store. That store should steal gum from that kid.

This isn't justice. It's idiocy. The scales of justice aren't about perfect equality at such a granular level -- they are about meting punishment that the crime deserved.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[lagomorpha2]

From my understanding, a week with Slashdot Beta should about do it.

Too cruel and unusual. No one deserves that.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[ScentCone]

I always thought Tolkein (through Gandalf) put it quite well

Don't confuse Gandalf/Tolkien's admonishment about eagerness with ruling out that ultimate punishment when it's appropriate. Not to mention the concept is a little muddled anyway. Of course we can't "give life" to some innocent who was, for example, killed by a violent sexual predator. Our inability to do that sort of magic doesn't mean we should let cruel, predatory violent killers carry on with life, either. Such people have stated - often verbally, but always through their actions - that they consider any social contract regarding the value of other's lives to be out the window. He has said, "I get to decide on a whim - and without any consideration of how you live your life - if you live or die ... and when you die, if I get to rape you to death in the process before choosing my next victim."

Our inability to "give life" back to you after he's raped you to death isn't a sign that we're unable to realize he's waived his own claim on life. We don't have to be "eager," in Tolkein's parlance, to deal with such a person. But nor should we nurse him along in a cage for the next 50 years.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[wasteoid]

Gandalf killed his fair share of goblins. You didn't see him pussy-footing around, trying to gently incapacitate them.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[wasteoid]

Ah, here is the core of the problem with these arguments - it's not his fault but society's fault he ended up this way.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

We all could save a lot by just shooting anyone ever suspected of any wrongdoing.. is cost really the way to discuss this?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[cyberchondriac]

It's not meant as a deterrent, you're right, it doesn't work as one. it's meant to simply eliminate remorseless, hopelessly evil people from the world.
The US has a high population than many other countries, thus a higher crime rate than those countries, but also an open news media, so nearly every crime is tracked and reported, and even sometimes makes national news if it serves an agenda.
If you look at http://www.nationmaster.com/co... there's even a disclaimer that states, "DEFINITION: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.." There is also a difference between a murder and an execution: a murder of an innocent is unprovoked; killing a murderer is not unprovoked and he/she is not innocent. (Granted, they should be DAMN SURE they guy they're executing is indeed the guilty party, in this particular case, it was no contest). Frankly it's akin to killing cancer cells. Rehabilitation where violent criminals are concerned is an extreme rarity, practically a myth. And I'm fairly sure that more than half the vocal anti-death penalty crowd here would suddenly drop their lofty principles if the man strapped in the gurney was Dick Cheney.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[JerryLove]

How about you drop the pretense that the issue is cost?

So the main argument tossed about the media against the death penalty is about the cost. That argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so you say, Forget about cost because even if it costs less to execute people it represents such a tiny fraction of the overall cost. Except that doesn't stand up because your 3000 death row inmates represent between $150 and $300 million per year, so despite it being just a small percentage of the overall tab it is still not a small amount of money. Maybe we save that cash and throw it education or urban blight? You like those things, right?

Just be honest about your argument: You are against the death penalty because you are simply against it.

1) Please feel free to argue with the media about what you assert the media said. I am not them.

2) Your comment is also out-of-context. The question was asked, and answered. You hack a straw man by pretending I was addressing something other than what I was.

3) I am not capable of tautological wants. It would be kinda cool if I could, but I cannot support or oppose something because I support or oppose it. I do require some reason for a position.

On to your post. *You* assert that we should kill people for the reason "it saves money".

OK. Let's kill all people, at arrest. Indeed: let's just have the arresting officer shoot them on the spot. That will save *far* more money than your plan will.

No? That's not your position? Then what is your position? What was that about honesty?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[dfenstrate]

Taking someone's life through a death sentence or a whole-life prison term will never bring restoration to the family of the victim.

So do away with most whole-life sentences. Restore decent parole opportunities. That's what happens in almost every other civilized country, allowing almost all prisoners an opportunity to reform.

The rise in supermax prisons has way more to do with the potential profit for the commercial prison industry than it has to do with crime.

I never said anything about life in prison or a death sentence bringing restoration to the victim's family. I'm concerned with getting dangerous, extremely violent people away from the living permanently. A dog gets rabies. Am I mad at the dog for getting rabies? No. Does it matter how he got rabies? Only insofar as we can eliminate the source; for the fate of the dog, it doesn't matter one wit. The dog is put down because it is simply too dangerous to be allowed around the living anymore. So it is with death row inmates. As for what 'civilized countries do', kindly provide some stories of comparable murderers who were successfully re-introduced to society.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[NeutronCowboy]

Here's one original study: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/23/1306417111 There are many more out there. The consensus is that a non-trivial amount of people are wrongly sentenced to death, and an even higher proportion are wrongly convicted, but never exonerated on further review

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[bluefoxlucid]

Crime is a legal thing.

You indicated a person may deserve something--that it is morally his due to receive it. To decide we do not want to deliver it is based in arbitrary moral grounds. Often such views are held in parallel with the view that we may feel good about such a man experiencing hapless karma (e.g., getting attacked by a bear while standing over a woman he raped and murdered in the woods); while we are above inflicting the same (throwing the man in a cage with an angry bear). We openly hope that bad things happen to these people so that it is not upon our heads.

Such arbitrary morality absolves us from consequences. We concoct a fantasy of no consequences to deal with this, e.g., the insistence that the death penalty or even punishment itself provides no deterrent. Reality is both less pleasant and less simple: punishments provide deterrents based on a large array of factors, each of which varies with the local culture. In some places, execution provides no deterrent; in others, execution provides a major deterrent. Even in the latter, we absolve ourselves from the consequences of more innocent blood by convincing ourselves we are civilized; and besides, that particular blood is not on our hands, so it is not our concern.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea because otherwise everyone will be evil. I mean its lucky the US has the death penalty because it has deterred so many of the evil fucking people. Oh wait, the US has one of the worse rates of violent crime. States with the death penalty don't have less of this crime. It is not a preventive nor a deterrent.

I've never considered the death penalty as a deterrent. It is because it is not, it is punishment.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[misexistentialist]

Then we can lower the cost of death sentences. Juries will feel more responsible when their decision is likely definitive. Prosecutors should also be liable to be executed themselves for any abuse of the process

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[NeutronCowboy]

There are plenty of studies out there that show that executions cost significantly more than life imprisonments. You can get started with some studies here: http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost If you want to save money, lock people up in the Waldorf Astoria for life.

aybe if we cleaned up our unnecessarily exhaustive legal process that has basically become a job program this wouldn't be an issue.

Yes, because making sure due process was observed, mistakes were uncovered and general asshattery by various people was minimized is just a job program. I guess we should just put you in a suit and call you Judge Dredd, right?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Nukenbar]

This is an interesting point, but it does lead to another problem/cost. If you don't have the threat of a death sentance, then you can't get evil people to take a life without parole sentence without a trial. No one take a Life-WO-parole sentence, no matter how guilty they are, unless there is something worse on the table.

Take this case for instance:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-14-3535475282_x.htm

There is no way this dude doesn't take Life-WO-parole sentence without a trial if the death penalty was an option (he got something like 500 years after trial). Those no-death sentence cases cost taxpayer money as well.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[oji-sama]

I read your longer (similar) post earlier, and while the argument sounds convincing, I would like to see some statistics about the execution being a major deterrent (in comparison to prison terms). I wonder if there are any papers that take into account the subcultures of an area (say state) with death penalty and compare the crime rate to a similar states (and so on). Could you link to one of these, or what is your argument based on?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Extremus]

It is difficult to reply when you do not point the exact problem in my argument. Nevertheless, I do argue that it is probably not his fault, ultimately. But that does not imply that I defend that he should be exempt of any sanctions. Any criminal has to be punished. However, society should expect any normal human to learn and recover. If, at any point, society believes that a person probably cannot learn and recover (at any cost), it is society right to contain this person and its duty to investigate ways of doing so. If that turns to be life imprisonment, so be it. However, when an society kills someone prematurely, it removes this person right to try to learn and recover. I would accept a different argument in case society could not keep this person contained, but that is not really the case.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason we don't torture people is because only people who are mentally damaged, like him, do that to other people -- regardless of what they deserve.

I would caution you on that point. Millions of perfectly normal people are willing to torture. The Milgram Experiment provided statistically significant proof, and the historical record of societies that have fallen into a-couple-sigmas-more-authoritarian-than-the-median systems of government is also pretty clear on this point.

If you're not going to do that, at least keep it to yourself. Pretend you're not a degenerate so you don't debase us as a society.

And this is how 99.9999% of us respond to the monster within ourselves when given the opportunity to murder or torture. We choose to act like humans ought to. It's a good solution during peaceful times.

Or, if you can't control it, at least have the decency to leave evidence when your monster drives you to some hideous act so we can catch you and put your deranged ass behind bars with the other animals.

OK, 99.9999% of us behave in a civilized fashion in real life. On the internet, the truth comes out. I'm actually grateful for the "I WANT HIM TO SUFFER!" crowd. They serve as a reminder for the mostly-civilized folk that we're all just one authority figure away from becoming like them.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[bluefoxlucid]

Argument's based on psychology and internal systemic simulations. I've linked to papers before that argued the death penalty is a deterrent, and those that argue that it isn't. I linked to one a while back that argued both, without coherence, based on various statistics and seemingly unaware of self-contradiction; its summary didn't conclude anything, nor did it acknowledge the lack of conclusive evidence.

Mostly, I'm just outputting summary knowledge gleaned from a lot of consideration and a lot of information I've come across over the years; I don't keep a running scientific compendium to cite from. If the argument sounds convincing, you can either do your investigation to put it to rest or you can just assume I'm amongst the ranks of Locke and Voltaire. In any case, the argument that an action may or may not have an important effect isn't exactly sweeping: I'm basically telling you that policy involves examining hard the effects of that policy, and that some effects cannot be considered as general patterns. I've made the same argument about gun control.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[number17]

And yet they are letting people out early because there are too many of them. How does that deter evil people? Have these people even been re-educated?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Agent0013]

Yeah, but you have to buy the bullets for each execution. I say we bring back the old guillotine. Each execution is free after the purchase of the device. It gives you plenty of viewer excitement. And I don't see any way for it not to be quick and painless.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Agent0013]

"All the appeals that death row inmates use before being put to death cost more than just imprisoning them for life!" Maybe if we cleaned up our unnecessarily exhaustive legal process that has basically become a job program this wouldn't be an issue.

Yep, just give the power of execution right over to the armed thugs (police) in the first place. Then nobody had to pay for judges to hold unnecessary trials and we don't need to spend money for these expensive prison systems. Let's just go full on Judge Dredd style!

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

So tie him up, shoot him twice, and let him suffocate in a grave. Perfect equivalency. The punishment would exactly fit the crime, and by definition, be fair. Nothing more, nothing less.

Annnd before someone says the trite 'eye for an eye leaves the world blind'...if you didn't....you'd be the only blind person as the third eye-gouge is escalation, not retaliation as they got to go first.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

You're quoting the guy whose side, had they actually DEALT with Melkor in the beginning...wouldn't have had all those subsequent deaths from multiple wars by his underling. I'd say their hands were drenched in blood through their negligence, and in no position to preach.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Never heard the justice system was to prevent crime. Cops enforce laws, not prevent crimes. Judges weigh over the fate of the caught. Nothing about prevention, beyond any message sent to those that consider committing felonies.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

what is proportional to rape, tortured and murdered?

Well, for such a cruel crimes cruel and unusual punishment would be proportional. However there are good arguments for nonetheless not carrying out such punishment.

Re: Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
â"The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring, Book I, Chapter 2: "The Shadow of the Past"

It is worth the expense of supporting the guilty on death row through the lengthy appeals process if it means avoiding even a single wrongly convicted person being executed.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[xevioso]

Bumper sticker morality should stay on bumper stickers.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Chrisq]

So you're saying a justice system shouldn't try to be any better than criminals?

Agree. This is the slippery slope that leads to barbaric systems like Sharia, with stoning for adultery, death for professing belief in other religions, and so on.

Or beating people up because they are different Five Hasidic Jews Arrested for Williamsburg Attack on Gay Man

Or because they don't follow your rules Ultra-Orthodox Israeli couple sparks riot after telling woman to move to the back of a public bus

If they had laws saying that people had to stay at the back of the bus or that they had to be beaten up then you'd have a point

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[xevioso]

I live in San Francisco, voted for Pelosi and Obama, and am quite liberal. And I fully support the death penalty, and am happy to see this guy off the face of the earth.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[ganjadude]

what amazes me is that the democrats dont support killing criminals who murder other people, but have no problem killing an unborn child who hasnt had a chance to break the laws. For the record, Im pro death penalty for people who are caught in the act or who show no remorse. im also not against abortions legally eventhough I dont like them morally

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[ganjadude]

and how much more could we save by swapping all life sentences to the death penalty and actually follow through and not let people live for 30 years on appeal after appeal?

How much more could we save if we just let all the criminals free!!!

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[ganjadude]

funny how I just used their site to make an argument above against someone stating that we kill too many people. We have killed around 1300 people since 1976. Id say there are way more than that that should have been killed by now in a country of 400 million

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[ganjadude]

vengeance IS justice...just more fun!

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[ganjadude]

Frankly I can think of crimes worse than murder. Rape and child molestation for example. I find those crimes to be WAY worse than murder. I can justify murdering rapists and child molesters, i cant justify rape or child molestation

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Less. So let's cap the number of appeals and put a hard limit on how long someone sits on death row before we carry out the deserved punishment.

Any other problems you want me to solve for you?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly I can think of crimes worse than murder. Rape and child molestation for example. I find those crimes to be WAY worse than murder. I can justify murdering rapists and child molesters, i cant justify rape or child molestation

That makes you a democrat. Democrats think rape is such a horrible crime that it justifies murdering an unborn child that was a result of rape (even if most abortions aren't done for that reason, they just can't afford to let one go!)

And child molestation? That's full democrat "think of teh children"

A truly non-democrat position that adheres to the Constitution would be to simply leave it to individuals to defend themselves, and tell the state the fuck off and stop deciding who lives or dies. You have the right to bear arms. USE IT. When every women and child is packing heat, rapists and child molesters will think twice!

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

And carrying out a death penalty also has it's costs. Take a read of costs death penalty [deathpenaltyinfo.org]. (I may be cherry picking a bit here but) From that article it was estimated that California could save $170 million a year by commuting al death sentences to life in prison.

So do you want to pay more or less taxes?

California makes a really bad example because they don't really like to kill people despite having the death penalty. People sit on death row for decades. A better metric would be a state like Texas that, eventually, follows through with it's execution orders in a more (albiet still very long) timely manner.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Presumably, this means that Criminal A destroyed twice as much property breaking in, endangered twice as many people during getaway, had a gun in twice as many people's faces. Sounds fair to me.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[omnichad]

A death-row inmate costs, what, $50-75-100K/yr to house and feed?

The real criminals are the prison industry. Let's say prison is not a standard household and there are guards and such. But they are also living on a very small piece of real estate per person. Going to college is cheaper than going to prison. Money that could be going to provide financial aid to students is being used to house criminals at outrageous rates.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[thesandtiger]

Have you actually spent even a second thinking about what you're arguing?

Simple math: Let's take your number - 100k per year per death row inmate. Let's DOUBLE it, to make it even more expensive. 200k per inmate per year. MY GOD, HOW EXPENSIVE!

There are 3,000 people (actually a bit less) on death row in the US, but let's DOUBLE that number, just to make your argument even more powerful. 6,000 people on death row at $200,000 per year in expenses - gosh, that's going to break the bank!

Except it won't. It comes out to 1.2 billion dollars a year to house people on death row. Let's DOUBLE that to 2.4 billion dollars a year just on housing these people.

There are 300 million americans (roughly) but not all of them pay taxes. Mittens got in trouble during the election for saying that 47% don't ever pay taxes, but let's be even more ridiculous - I'm going to say that only 10% of Americans pay income tax. That's 30 million tax payers.

So, 2.4 billion dollars, split by 30 million people... that comes out to.... $80 dollars per year per individual tax payer. Remember, I doubled your estimate of expenses. I doubled the number of people on death row. I doubled the resulting multiplication, and then I took a ridiculously small tax base figure to get to that WHOPPING $80 per year.

What you're saying to me is that $80 per year in your pocket (and it would actually be far, far less) is worth it to you to vastly increase the odds that innocent people will be executed. You're saying to me that you having $80 a year (or about 22 cents a day) is more important than trying to keep the state from murdering innocents or at least reduce the chances of that happening. You're telling me that 22 cents a day (actually a lot less) is more important to you than sparing the families of those wrongly convicted and executed from the anguish of the state run amok.

There's a monster here, but I'm pretty sure it's you.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Sabriel]

You're absolutely right. Proportional. He raped, tortured and murdered. So what is proportional to rape, tortured and murdered?

The question then becomes: do you want to be a good person with a clean conscience, or do you want to inflict a punishment proportional to rape, torture and murder?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[quantaman]

You miss a critical factor in your analysis.

People take cues from society, when society says that deliberate killing isn't taboo, but something that's justified in appropriate circumstances, people are going to take the cue. You're normalizing killing and providing rationalizations to potential killers, it would be a hard effect to measure but I'm sure it exists.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[thesandtiger]

You mean Texas where it's pretty much a given that they've executed at least one innocent person, and where the governor doesn't care?

Yeah, I think that's probably not the state you want to be using as an example there, unless you're perfectly OK with innocents being murdered by the state run amok just to (maybe) save a few pennies.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why are we differentiated grand theft from petty theft, eh?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[shutdown -p now]

I'm sure I will get an argument that "All the appeals that death row inmates use before being put to death cost more than just imprisoning them for life!" Maybe if we cleaned up our unnecessarily exhaustive legal process that has basically become a job program this wouldn't be an issue.

The reason why the legal process is "unnecessarily exhaustive" is to minimize the chances of executing an innocent (and even then, apparently, we're still not all that good at it). If you get rid of it, then you're murdering that much more people for something they didn't do.

Ultimately, that's the biggest flaw in your argument. We do get value out of letting those monsters live for the rest of their lives - that value is the lives of people who are exonerated while they serve their sentence.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

You listed three points, A, B, and C, as if they are equally considerable. On the contrary, the ONLY thing that matters is A (the fact that innocents will be murdered), which cleanly voids the possibility that a government -- ANY government -- can possibly employ a death penalty while reamaining moral and just. All it takes is ONE innocent killed, and POOF -- there goes the possibility that government is doing this for the benefit of innocents (which is of course the underlying justification).

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[bluefoxlucid]

Which logical fallacy was it where you stand up a situation and then silently remove a piece of that situation? You've claimed "appropriate situations", and then removed the concept.

It *is* appropriate to kill in self-defense where other alternatives are significantly less profitable. If you have a 90% likelihood of death in self-defense by non-lethal means and a 90% likelihood of survival by applying lethal self-defense, it is more profitable to apply lethal self-defense. You are not morally obligated to take a severe risk of death to avoid harming a man who is trying to kill you and has damn good chance of succeeding.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[kaatochacha]

If you put that on a bumper sticker, you'd make millions.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[quantaman]

Which logical fallacy was it where you stand up a situation and then silently remove a piece of that situation? You've claimed "appropriate situations", and then removed the concept.

It *is* appropriate to kill in self-defense where other alternatives are significantly less profitable. If you have a 90% likelihood of death in self-defense by non-lethal means and a 90% likelihood of survival by applying lethal self-defense, it is more profitable to apply lethal self-defense. You are not morally obligated to take a severe risk of death to avoid harming a man who is trying to kill you and has damn good chance of succeeding.

I should have been more specific, war, self-defence, and apprehension of felons are sanction methods of state killing, but execution is a new category entirely. Execution is killing for punishment, justice, or revenge, surely there's a non-trivial category of murders where the killer feels wronged by the victim and is seeking punishment, justice, or revenge. I've no doubt that the state declaring those are valid motives for killing helps provides moral justification for some murders.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[91degrees]

True, but I think the basic point still applies.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[bluefoxlucid]

You open an interesting philosophical point: where the state fails to execute a murderer, a man may forfeit his life to state execution by carrying justice by his own hand. On principle in the ideal case, I don't have a problem with this; we all know Samuel L. Jackson doesn't.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[quantaman]

Say Phil from gang A is murdered, and his friend Bob is certain that Frank from gang B did it. Do you think that Bob is justified in killing Frank?

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[jwhitener]

So do you want to pay more or less taxes?

That is what I kept telling conservative friends about mandatory health insurance (Obamacare): do you want to pay for the uninsured people to get service from an expensive emergency room, or do you want to pay for regular preventative care, non-emergency care, for the uninsured? Because either way we are going to subsidize health insurance for the poor, so long as we legally mandate that ER's must take care of anyone.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to argue with someone who disagrees on such a fundeental point. However, I always thought Tolkein (through Gandalf) put it quite well:

Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.

I don't know if you're joking or not, but in either case, I still think you and just about everyone else in this forum ... supposedly used by intelligent people .... are, well, basically a bunch of overblown, windbag opinionists who have nothing better to do than spout bullshit like a whale blows water.

Law is not flawless.
Punishment isn't always dealt to the guilty.
People, generally, are the cruelest animals to walk this planet.
Ice cream melts in the heat.
Dogs sometimes bite.
Tomcats sometime spray.
Educated idiots rarely seem to 'get it' when discussing something as ridiculous as a penalty that equal numbers of people agree with, and disagree with.
And lastly - politicians, judges, lawyers, and just about every convenience store and hamburger joint manager have God complexes that compel them to do the job they think they're doing.

In Oklahoma they took a convicted killer, who admitted as much, and put him on a gurney, strapped him down, shoved a needle in his arm, and either the drugs or his shit-crazy fear of what was happening caused him to 'blow a vein.'

No matter what, he got what he deserved - the carrying out of his sentence.

One less criminal with a chance of someday, somehow, being set free to possibly do more harm to a defenseless victim.

Case closed .... all this 'discussion' on the who, what, where, why and how scenarios are basically a moot point.

Spout on you silly whales .... spout on.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

In peaceful suburbs with low justifiable homicide rates, state action is the dominating outcome to murder; execution becomes a looming, subconscious threat.

There's scant evidence that this is in fact true. Murder in these settings are almost all crimes of passion. There's no "subconcious" threat to evaluate.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter. We tend to not commit crimes due to an internalised moral compass given to us both by birth and upbringing. We tend to stay on the straight and narrow because that's the right thing to do, not because we consciously or otherwise perform a running cost-benefit analysis. (In fact, society wouldn't nearly work if that were true.) We as a species don't want to kill members of our own species, and will go to some lengths to avoid that.

There's indeed strong evidence to this as studied in the field of killology, i.e. the study of how to make men kill each other. It turns out that training a killer is a surprisingly difficult thing to do. Quoting a marine corps sergeant "One man in eighty is a natural killer. The rest we have to teach!" (Which I note corresponds nicely with the prevalence rates of psychopathy.) And it's illustrative to learn how this process is carried out. Not with moral guidance on the "rightness of killing" (which would be wholly superfluous under your model, people would just subconsciously evaluate that it's no "OK" to kill, and be done with it), but instead by instilling the automatic somatic reflex to take certain action that will result in the likely death of your opponent.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[bluefoxlucid]

There's scant evidence that this is in fact true. Murder in these settings are almost all crimes of passion. There's no "subconcious" threat to evaluate.

So, because people will not execute premeditated murder where the dominant threat is state execution, you conclude that murder in such a situation is a crime of passion?

The situation you described seems to set a threshold: people fear state execution and so do not commit murder; they must experience a state of passion strong enough to override this deeply-ingrained threat before they will commit murder.

We have crimes of passion in ghettos with a murder rate of 10 per day, too (we had that in Baltimore City for a few weeks--double-digit daily murders). "Fuck you man you cock sucking nigger" "WHAT? *BULLET* WHAT NOW MOTHERFUCKER?!" Instant murder. And yet in other places, it takes much more to tip the scales.

We tend to stay on the straight and narrow because that's the right thing to do, not because we consciously or otherwise perform a running cost-benefit analysis.

Everything you do is run through established facts in the basal ganglia. Your "Moral compass" and your well-accepted fact that the police will come and get you and put you in the chair are the same thing. Immediately reject the idea that people make "Conscious decisions", because we hardly do.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[bluefoxlucid]

By "Certain" do you mean he has reason to estimate this with perceived certainty, or that he saw it happen or otherwise has concrete, irrefutable evidence to the fact?

In the latter case, it is difficult to argue against.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[quantaman]

So once Bob kills Frank is Joe from gang B justified in killing Bob? You've basically just endorsed gang wars not dissimilar to the ones destroying some inner cities.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[bluefoxlucid]

I didn't say it was readily easy to argue for, just that it was difficult to argue against.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[quantaman]

Well I just gave the argument, that justification is a sliding slope that can very easily lead to a cycle of violence. That's why I think it's wise to ban capital punishment.

When someone asks under what circumstances of revenge, justice, or punishment it's appropriate to take a life, we can simply answer none.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[bluefoxlucid]

Ah. Sliding slope is not a fallacy in all cases, but it is here. You're using an undistributed middle: all murder is taking life, all state execution is taking life, therefor all state execution is murder. Yours: state execution is execution for justice, mob justice is execution for justice, therefor state execution sanctions mob justice.

The problem is state execution operates under due process--a legal system which carries consequences--while mob justice operates under no such thing. Mob justice may create a cycle of violence, but it is hard to argue that the actions are themselves individually or wholly unjust. Legal justice adds due process and obstructions to the cycle, creating a more stable system.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[quantaman]

Mob justice has a process. The claim isn't that state execution is a valid justification for mob justice, it's that it's a justification at all.

Potential killers look for ways to justify their actions, even if they're poor justifications they'll still use them. Say execution is only just when done under due process by the state they'll rationalize that it means some deliberate killings are just and moral, therefore their murder is as well. State that deliberate killing is never just, that justification becomes much harder, killing is less normalized, and a few lives may be saved.

Re:Punishment fits the crime

[ComputersKai]

And despite all the long prison terms, death penalties, and all the alleged "deterrents", our crime rates our still worse than many of our European counterparts that don't employ these methods. Prison isn't much of a deterrent anymore; since the crime record essentially removes any chance of prisoners getting a decent job that they can feel good about, most likely a return to crime would result.
I highly doubt that most of the victims would enjoy the justice system exacting society's vengeance, either.

Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[delt0r]

Why does the US still even have the Death penalty?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

This? http://www.ok.gov/oag/documents/Lockett%20Clemency%20brf.pdf

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[schneidafunk]

Because some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty. Read what this guy did and then tell me he doesn't deserve to die.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[oodaloop]

That's your opinion. I feel the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means the government doesn't get to kill you. We had that before, and it wasn't great.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[smooth wombat]

Because of people like this. Or the person (or people) who thought it would be fun to put cats in a bag and beat them to death, or the guy who raped and killed an 11-month old.

For these reasons, and a whole host of others, these people have decided the basic rules of society do not apply to them. As a result they need to be removed. Keeping them alive does nothing except waste taxpayer money on people who will never be productive members of society.

That is why we have the death penalty.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
  J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[cardpuncher]

For the same reason they're so keen on guns and against healthcare - the populus been induced into a state of perpetual fear so that it might more easily be manipulated. And fear needs to be fed.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[schneidafunk]

I would be fine giving this particular man the death penalty.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[delt0r]

So its unacceptable for them to behave this way, but its ok if the state does it?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[OzPeter]

Because of people like this.

Given that the death penalty was in existence prior to his crime, yet the perp still did what he did, it seems that the threat of punishment was no deterrent. So if the death penalty is not a deterrent, why again does the US have it? It can't be to protect the victims, and I've seen figures that suggest locking someone up for life is actually cheaper to do (given all the appeals, special wings etc). The only conclusion I can realistically see is pure revenge by the rest of society.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[schneidafunk]

'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' does not mean you get to rape & kill without punishment. That is what this guy did and his punishment was justified in my opinion.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means the government doesn't get to kill you.

While the line that you clipped from is sufficient to form the foundation of a legal system, you are forgetting the key aspect. He willfully and maliciously ended another's life, thus rejecting her right to life (as well as the other two stated rights) and forfeited his rights to the same. Or do you not believe that one who kidnaps another should be imprisoned? Or that one who steals should face a fine?
The punishment for a violation of another's rights should be proportional to the core right that was violated, with allowances for mercy.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[delt0r]

And the legal system never screws it up right? Oh wait yes it does, all the time. And no i don't think they deserve to die. I don't think that solves anything.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[schneidafunk]

Your definition of revenge is my definition of justice in this case, because society at large is OK with it and not just the victim's relatives.

"Justice—as logically, legally, and ethically defined—isn’t really about “getting even” or experiencing a spiteful joy in retaliation. Instead, it’s about righting a wrong that most members of society (as opposed to simply the alleged victim) would agree is morally culpable. And the presumably unbiased (i.e., unemotional) moral rightness of such justice is based on cultural or community standards of fairness and equity. Whereas revenge has a certain selfish quality to it"

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Jason Levine]

Two problems with this:

First of all, how do you decide who is a "waste of taxpayer money"? That seems to me like a slippery slope that could be applied to any group if the mob so deems it. Don't like a group? Declare their activities illegal and arrest them. Then declare that all they are doing is sitting in jail taking up taxpayer money and execute them to save some cash.

Secondly, what about the estimated 4% of people on death row who are innocent. There are people who, for various reasons (e.g. overzealous prosecutors, incompetent defense attorneys, corrupt police planting/hiding evidence, etc), were convicted of crimes that they didn't commit. They sometimes sit in jail for decades trying to get cleared. Sometimes they do (having lost years/decades of their life), sometimes they don't (cleared after they die in jail or are executed). If you wrongly jail someone, that's bad but you can release them. It's not a 100% payback for the time wrongly spent in prison, but it is something. If you execute an innocent person, you can't "un-execute" them. They are dead and no amount of "Oops, our bad" will change that.

This is why the death penalty - if it is to be kept - should only be applied exceedingly sparingly and only after a TON of legal maneuvers that are skewed towards the defendant not being executed. Better to keep a guilty person alive and in jail than to execute an innocent.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[SJHillman]

You're taking away liberty and, usually, the pursuit of happiness. So why not life, if we're grouping them all together?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

My apologies, I had misread the events. 'rejected his right to life... blah blah'

I tend to assume that 'rape and murder' charges together would mean one victim instead of about 20.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Libr8r]

Government job #1: protect the innocent's right to life liberty and property from people like Lockett. This is called justice.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Linzer]

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

  J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

The very same quote popped up in my mind immediately. However strange it may feel to refer to Tolkien on this issue, this particular quote has something unusually profound and humane to it. I ascribe it to Tolkien's experience in world war I, when death must have become very real and familiar to him.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[delt0r]

The against healthcare still doesn't make any sense.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[rvw]

Because of people like this. Or the person (or people) who thought it would be fun to put cats in a bag and beat them to death, or the guy who raped and killed an 11-month old.

For these reasons, and a whole host of others, these people have decided the basic rules of society do not apply to them. As a result they need to be removed. Keeping them alive does nothing except waste taxpayer money on people who will never be productive members of society.

We as a society make the rules, and we want to follow those rules for a reason. If we follow these people by using their rules, we lose. If we let somebody live who had no respect for life, we still follow our rules, the way we want it to be. If that means that we have to give in and not kill these people who did horrible things, that's a consequence we have to live with. Using tax money as a reason to justify the death penalty.... I won't even go there!

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[DigiShaman]

First of all, how do you decide who is a "waste of taxpayer money"? That seems to me like a slippery slope that could be applied to any group if the mob so deems it.

We already have death panels (cost of life analysis and funding) under Obamacare. Slippery slope you say? Keep on sliding and pickup speed along the way.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[cheetah_spottycat]

Why does the US still even have the Death penalty?

It's all about revenge. The american people are thirsty for blood. It's a dark truth that watching people die can be very satisfying, once you've been relieved from the burden of conscience.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[cryptolemur]

It could be that the point of capital punishment is to tell people that at times it is OK to kill a person that has offended you...

No, wait...

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the US is a society of violent retribution, not a society of laws based on human rights

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

So how does this punishment protect people any more than other forms of punishment that aren't "justified" murder?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[GameboyRMH]

Morally I don't have a problem with the death penalty, but I don't think justice systems are accurate enough to bet human lives on.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[rvw]

Read George Lakoff - Don't think of an elephant about the strict father principle, and you may begin to understand how this works...

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Vermonter]

Since you mentioned liberty, does that mean you don't believe the government gets to incarcerate you either?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Splab]

I generally disagree with capital punishment as it can't be undone, should injustice have occurred.

However, I wholeheartedly believe that should death penalties be administered, they *must* be swift and painless, because we as a society *must* be above the evil we are punishing. Spending 46 minutes killing someone is cruel, evil and unwarranted, those in charge of the execution and OKing the drugs should be tried by the human rights council.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[bluefoxlucid]

"It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary." Winston S. Churchill.

Execution is a deterrent in many places; in others it is not. Various punishments have various effects, influenced by the culture around them. If we forgo execution to save an innocent man, but condemn two more to die, we have failed; it is necessary to accept our flaws and do what is necessary to save lives. If losing one man by our own action is unacceptable, losing two more by our inaction is not a solution; we must necessarily learn better to identify the innocent.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did this guy deserve to die?
http://www.newyorker.com/repor...

What we can never get away from is that human justice is always fallible, and as such must be, even in some paltry measure, reversible.

You cannot take back death.

.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[rgmoore]

society at large is OK with it

Society at large is not of one mind about it. Capital punishment is supported by a majority in the US, but it's a shrinking majority with a substantial and growing minority opposed. About 2/3 of the states have capital punishment and about 1/3 don't, and the recent trend has been for states to abolish it. It's clearly a contentious issue without a well settled consensus.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[rvw]

Read George Lakoff - Don't think of an elephant and you may understand how this works.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[jellomizer]

However that is a barbaric way to look at justice.
The point of a death penalty, is for people deemed to dangerous to be contained.
Prison should be people deemed to dangerous to be out in the public.

We have confused justice with revenge. And we have expanded our prison system to be a punishment system.

I think the biggest mistake is the Unusual section of "Cruel and Unusual punishment". It creates a system that makes finding appropriate penalties to crimes much more difficult. Because we are using a 18th century punishment to a 21st century crime.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[coinreturn]

Given that the death penalty was in existence prior to his crime, yet the perp still did what he did, it seems that the threat of punishment was no deterrent.

Although I am no proponent of the death penalty, your logic is flawed. Although in this case the penalty was not an effective deterrent, there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I thought Fox"News" had gone off the air.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[operagost]

They took away the lives of other people. The idea of a limited democratic government is that its main function should be to defend the rights of the people.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have all ways wonder how many of Americas hard line Christians might be in for a shock if they are correct and God actually said 'Thou shalt not kill'.

  They will argue but I haven't killed. they are wrong a system that had a 4% chance of killing an innocent man might in your name might be ok by mans laws but I doubt it it would be in Gods eyes.

So its to hell with you all better get out there and start protesting against the death penalty else no rapture for you your gonna burn with the rest of us boy!

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the death penalty was in existence prior to his crime, yet the perp still did what he did, it seems that the threat of punishment was no deterrent. So if the death penalty is not a deterrent, why again does the US have it? It can't be to protect the victims, and I've seen figures that suggest locking someone up for life is actually cheaper to do (given all the appeals, special wings etc). The only conclusion I can realistically see is pure revenge by the rest of society.

If the threat of death is no deterrent, and we're protected from "cruel and unusual punishment" (for sake of argument, let's call these things worse punishments than death: tortue and the like) then there simply does not exist any deterrent severe enough. So does that mean we remove all of the punishments and make murder/rape/assault a free-for-all? No...no it does not. What the death penalty at least does is take the absolute worst of our you're-never-going-be-a-functional-member-of-society-ever-again criminals...and makes them NOT a 40 year tax burden (3 hots and a cot) to society.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Talderas]

It's quite simple. Through the justice system, society decides that some individuals are no longer fit to be part of the society which the justice system represents. You have three choices. You can incarcerate this individual for the rest of his life, in which case he is still benefiting from society taking care of him. You can kill the individual, in which case he no longer draws a benefit from society. The final choice, which is never used anymore, is to exile the individual from society, in which case he no longer draws a benefit from society.

I do not believe that someone who has been deemed unfit to be part of society should be able to reap any benefits from it. Thus the only outcomes that I feel are appropriate are the death penalty or exile.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[gweihir]

A penalty is something you can walk away from and learn from it. Killing somebody does not qualify as "penalty", it is just murder. No legal fiction can fix that little flaw.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the key. The death penalty is not usually in the menu in countries where the criminal justice system less retributive and more correctional. Criminological research drive the sentences in my country more than in the US as I understand it. That recent terror-nonsense caused an exception to this via the European organs of "collaboration".

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[sandytaru]

Actually, victim's relatives often don't want it either. My mother was murdered in 2004 and my sisters and I all agreed not to pursue to the death penalty because we don't believe in capital punishment. The state was relieved because those trials cost them several million dollars. The dude got 150 years and possibility of parole after 75 years served - that is, when he turns 115 years old. He's never going to live as a free man again. In the meantime, we were free to grieve and resume our lives, which is what our mother would have wanted.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Death sentence is never justified. Incarcerate him. Done.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[jareth-0205]

I would be fine giving this particular man the death penalty.

Way to miss the point of the quote...

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[i kan reed]

Yeah, as much as I dislike the death penalty, deprivation of rights from criminals is part of Locke's philosophy which is foundational to the US system of governance.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[GoCrazy]

Because it's expensive to house and feed an inmate for the rest of their lives and some violent offenders can't be rehabilitated.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Death sentence is more expensive then prison.
They may have decided basic rules do not apply to them, but the state and society itself is still bound to them or they wouldn't be better than those they want to punish.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[spire3661]

The problem with the Death Penalty has nothing to do with the crime. It has to do with the fact that humans are fallible, thus courts never expose Truth, only approximations of Truth. The State can never provide enough proof to justify the Death Penalty. Homicide in cold-blood is ALWAYS wrong, even if it is the State doing it.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[whoever57]

Keeping them alive does nothing except waste taxpayer money on people who will never be productive members of society.

Yeah, No. The cost of executing prisoners is higher than the cost of incarcerating them for life. Unless you want to look at states with expedited executions -- and what is the percentage of innocent people who are executed in those states?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[spire3661]

Marquis de Sade said it better "Til the infallibility of human judgements shall have been proved to me, I shall demand the abolition of the penalty of death."

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is invalid; if a man makes an immoral and illogical choice, the system must account for that. In addition, the threat of punishment is only good as long as it's carried out whenever that threat exists.

This man planned and murdered a woman. He violated her Constitutional right to life, which the Government as part of the social contract of our Constitution is obligated to defend. In the event of failure (which it will, the Government cannot stop all murders), it is obligated to raise the stakes of murder by punishing this man, thereby reducing the incidence of murder and protecting the rest of it's populace. This man thought he could violate the social contract by doing what he wanted and depriving society of the rights it provides to others, and he thought he could get away with it; clearly he was wrong.

This man then was caught and sought to avoid punishment. He knew he murdered this woman, but he pled innocent; I know because you cannot be given the death penalty if you plead guilty in the United States. He thought he could avoid punishment and pled innocent but was found guilty. He again was given a chance to show remorse and repentance for his actions; he chose not to and instead tried to violate society. All death penalty decisions are given automatic appeals to a higher court to be reviewed once again; he again was found guilty.

Our society cannot operate with people like that; they are a drain on everyone else and by allowing such people to continue to be a part of it, they take from everyone else. Personally, my preferred method would not be the death penalty; I'd prefer instead not prison but life of hard labor with no pay and no possibility of parole, doing things that will benefit society at his expense; a net gain overall. However my method is deemed cruel and unusual in our society; death is deemed humane compared to that. Go figure.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[OzPeter]

your logic is flawed

While I can't prove it either way (and don't have time for a deeper look), a quick google shows that there are a lot of educated people in the criminal law field who agree with me that the death penalty is not a deterrent. In fairness there are also educated people who believe that it does.

But I would argue that criminals don't sit back and have a leisurely debate about the pros and cons of committing a crime that would engender capital punishment, prior to carrying it out. If anything such crimes are committed on a more emotional/spontaneous basis.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there are studies that show exactly this. Basically, the death penalty makes no difference whatsoever in crimes of passion, and in premeditated murders, the perpetrators think always that they can get away with it. In places where the death penalty has been instituted, violent crime/murder rates do not change at a statistically significant rate different from those where it hasn't.

And yes, if you go looking, you can probably find and cherry-pick places where it has. If I go looking, I can find and cherry-pick places where there's actually a negative correlation. (Some people believe that capital punishment can actually lead to more deaths because if you believe you are going to die for a crime, chances are greater that you will kill any potential witnesses that could testify against you.) Point is, at best, no correlation can be proved.

So I would argue that it is your logic that is actually flawed. Without proof that the deterrent effect exists, it is better to err on the side of not allowing state-sanctioned killing of people who pose no threat.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[cdrudge]

By the same logic then incarcerating them is holding them against their will. If you or I did it, it would be unacceptable but if the state does it, it's acceptable.

As a society (but not necessarily individually) we've deemed it acceptable and legal that a state can incarcerate and sometimes execute someone for crimes after they've had due process. That's the difference between an individual behaving that way, and the state doing so.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be fine giving it to you, for your opinion. Are we just going to go based on what people are fine with?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Nemesisghost]

Well, considering what deSade was accused of & what this guy was convicted of, I'd say deSade is probably this guy's saint.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[smooth wombat]

and God actually said 'Thou shalt not kill'.

The correct interpretation is 'Thou shalt not murder'. A very significant difference. Besides, the Bible is full of tales of God telling people to kill someone, wipe out entire villages, towns and cities so obviously killing someone who has wronged society is not against Biblical doctrine (for whatever that is worth).

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the legal system never screws it up right? Oh wait yes it does, all the time. And no i don't think they deserve to die. I don't think that solves anything.

Actually, it does solve something: It is much cheaper to give a man a deadly injection and dump him into a coffin, than to keep him for many many years living under a roof paid by the taxpayers, eating food bought with the taxpayers' money, and guarded by armed men employed by the taxpayers, the only return being the meager productivity you can get out of him through forced labor (forced as in, what the fuck do I care if I do it right or not?).

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

You would execute a person for beating a bag of cats to death? Horrible, yes. But a crime worthy of death?

No wonder America is such a vile, vicious bully of a country. If it's filled with people like you...

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of people like this.

Given that the death penalty was in existence prior to his crime, yet the perp still did what he did, it seems that the threat of punishment was no deterrent. So if the death penalty is not a deterrent, why again does the US have it? It can't be to protect the victims, and I've seen figures that suggest locking someone up for life is actually cheaper to do (given all the appeals, special wings etc). The only conclusion I can realistically see is pure revenge by the rest of society.

Because there is no point paying the cost to keep them alive in prison for the next 50 years.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ScentCone]

So its unacceptable for them to behave this way, but its ok if the state does it?

There is no moral equivalence. The state, in removing that man from existence, isn't preying on some randomly chosen innocent stranger with rape and murder in mind. That you find the two to be equivalent removes you from the pool of people who should ever weigh in on such subjects.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[oodaloop]

We can give the other two back when we convict the wrong person.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ShanghaiBill]

You're taking away liberty and, usually, the pursuit of happiness. So why not life, if we're grouping them all together?

Because when you take a life, you cannot give it back if you find out that you made a mistake. Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas in 2004. More modern analysis of the evidence has led many to believe that he was innocent. Oops.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you cannot tell the difference between a murder, and society killing a murderer, the problem is you. If the state rapes and kills 11 month olds, then that is a problem. Few people other than you would argue that. Cut the crap. If you don't like the idea about killing dirtbags, then fine. Just don't play dumb and pretend that there is no difference between "people like this" and everyone else.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Scragglykat]

It appears Clayton Lockett confessed to "first-degree murder, rape, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, assault and battery, burglary and robbery" with an 18 year old girl being the target of a lot of that, including the murder, so...

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

While he continues to live on the taxpayers dime contributing nothing to society.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I could, I would mod this up with extreme prejudice.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[westlake]

Why does the US still even have the Death penalty?

Michigan abolished the depth penalty in 1846, Wisconsin in 1853. States With and Without the Death Penalty

Oklahoma law includes a fall-back to execution by electrocution or firing squad if lethal injection is found unconstitutional. State by State Database

As of October 31, 2010:

men account for 98.3 percent (3206) of the persons currently on death row, while women account for 1.7 percent (55).
men account for 99 percent (1220) of the persons executed in recent years, while women account for 1.0 percent (12)

From the same page, a fascinating look at the last executions solely for crimes other than homicide The last women to be executed for a crime other than homicide were Hannah Piggen in 1785 and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ten to twenty years later, by pretend doctors administering an unknown concentration of an unknown dose of an unknown drug incompetently, all at a cost of millions of dollars more than imprisonment, and with a documented and substantial risk of killing an innocent person? He may deserve that, but the rest of the law-abiding decent people who live here don't.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ShanghaiBill]

Government job #1: protect the innocent's right to life liberty and property from people like Lockett. This is called justice.

Permanent incarceration will also protect the innocent. The innocent would be far better off if the billions spent every year to execute a handful of criminals was instead spent on long term crime prevention: better schools, lead abatement, and better prenatal nutrition.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would. That kind of behaviour indicates that a person is a psychopath, and nothing would stop them from doing similar things to humans. Sure, animals are unequal to us: kill them for meat, euthanize them, shoot them because they're pests. It's heartbreaking, sure, but those are all quick mostly painless deaths (I'm still a meat-eater). But do not make living things suffer for fun.

Y'know what? On an intellectual level I am against the death penalty, but if I was witnessing such an act of cruelty, I'd probably likely kill the perp on the spot.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet it does nothing to deter people doing said things.
Not only that, there is still the chance of framing people, or people being wrongly accused of such crimes.

There is no excuse for the death penalty in this day and age.
They can be put to much better use like making stuff in prisons to sell to people, recycling and other stuff. And it wouldn't even be slave labor, these people would be paid for their work, they'd just be kept within prison boundaries.
Everyone can have a purpose, even people that raped babies.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ScentCone]

It's called justice. Imagine your (for example) daughter was raped and murdered by this kind of guy. Every morning, you wake up and he wakes up. Your daughter will never wake up, join you for breakfast, or carry on with life. You, on the other hand, get to go to work and spend a little of each day earning some money that will be taken from you and used to feed your daughter's rapist HIS breakfast, clean his teeth, put clothes on him, and the rest. You get to think every day about how the guy who shows no remorse for raping your daughter to death gets to re-adjust to a lousy but very alive new life. He can watch the TV shows she'll never see, read the books she'll never read, correspond with and get visits from family members and other things that your raped, dead daughter will never get to do. Your never to be born grandchildren won't get to do them, either.

A guy who raped her to death, on the other hand, shows every sign of being happy to do exactly the same to the next person that comes into reach, and has no moral qualms about considering the people around him to be fair game. His moral code is that other people's lives are disposable, and that he is entitled to end those lives with his deliberate, purposeful cruelty and violence while getting off on that sexually. Your raped, murdered daughter is just one of his amusements, and lacking physical restraint he'll just do it over an over again. Whole teams of people will spend their waking hours, on your dime, making sure he can't carry out his chosen hobby on the next person's daughter or wife or mother. He will be kept in that cage, alive when your dead sexual plaything of a daughter is not, for decades and decades.

Or, he can be put out of everyone's misery like the savage, deliberately evil, remorseless animal he actually is, and you don't get to think - as you drink your first cup of coffee every morning, missing your murdered daughter - that he's down the road in the facility cafeteria you're buying to feed him, having his morning coffee, too. You're both thinking about your daughter. You, how you miss the life that was stolen from her, and him, how much he enjoyed raping her and taking it away from her and her family.

That's why we have the death penalty.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ganjadude]

better question

why do we care if we KILL someone in a humane way? If the person is getting death (and rightfully deserves it, im not getting into false executions right now) why should anyone care if the criminal suffers? did the people he killed get the choice of a humane murder? doubt it

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[TimothyDavis]

Given that the death penalty was in existence prior to his crime, yet the perp still did what he did, it seems that the threat of punishment was no deterrent.

While I personally agree that death penalties probably don't have much of an effect on capital crimes, I do feel the need to point out that a deterrent doesn't always eliminate the undesired behavior. Saying that the deterrent didn't work because instances still occur does not take into account all of the instances that did not occur because of the deterrent.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[dave420]

The very epitome of an ad hominem. Well done.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ganjadude]

we would be even better off if we didnt have 25 years of appeals. SOME death row inmates deserve appeals, but others do not. For example, as soon as the boston bomber is found guilty, he should be brought directly to the gallows (i prefer hangings, even cheaper than other methods) now if someone is on death row based on circumstantial evidence, then give them the appeals.

the issue of the death penalty being more expensive than life in prison is totally misleading.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, life incarceration is cheaper than execution in our current system. A bullet is cheaper than both, but we don't do that.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[dave420]

It costs more to execute people than it does to house them for the rest of their natural lives. So unless you also call for abolishing due process (which is the expensive part) you have absolutely no point whatsoever - all you've done is show everyone you don't really know much about this subject, but think you know enough to call for the deaths of countless people, including innocent people, with complete sincerity, while patting yourself on the back for being a great human being. You suck at this whole "being human" thing.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[schneidafunk]

No, we're going to go with what the trial determined. Death penalty.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[dave420]

So we have the death penalty because you think the only way to get closure on death is more death. Brilliant. Just lock them up - it's no picnic in prison. Yes - you get to wake up every day as a free person, and the convict (who may or may not be guilty) gets to wake up in a prison, deprived of freedom. If you can't see the difference, and how one is massively worse than the other, you might want to go get some help.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised some one is quoting the bible, eye-for-an-eye, stoning (to death).

Maybe we could send them on a one-way trip to Mars, just like the British did with Australia. Or "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[SuricouRaven]

That's socialist talk!

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[schneidafunk]

First, I am very sorry to hear about your mother. I hope you and your family are healing from that terrible tragedy. However, I feel that the justice system is meant to be impartial and I'm not sure if victims relatives should have any weight on the punishment of the crime. Imagine the reverse, where a victim is pushing for the death penalty and there are factors which would make an impartial jury give something less... for example a drunk driving accident.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello genius. It's very simple. Split the country into two parts. All those who wish to have the death penalty, (and a PROPER death penalty at that, involving the electric chair, so the perpetrators are cooked to death, in front of the victims' families, who also get to pull the lever) live in one part of the country, and insane liberals like you live in the other part. Which would be about 5% of the country (LOL).

Guess which part ALL of the criminals and murderers will move to? YOUR PART, you arrogant, self-righteous cretin.

So what does that tell us? It tells us that YOU'RE WRONG, and you KNOW you're wrong, but you don't care, you'd rather have millions more people become the victims of the parasites who live among us, otherwise known as 'criminals'.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[SuricouRaven]

Painless, reliable, simple execution actually isn't hard. Nitrogen asphyxiation does the job nicely. You won't see it used though, precisely because it is painless, even briefly euphoric. A lot of people, including many in congress, believe that justice is not served if the guilty are not made to suffer - the idea that murderers might die peacefully is intolerable.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[immaterial]

The state, in removing that man from existence, isn't preying on some randomly chosen innocent stranger

You say this as if it was true 100% of the time. Sadly it is not.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[hondo77]

The correct interpretation is 'Thou shalt not murder'.

Interpretation? Interpretation? Interpretation of what? You mean god left something like killing open to interpretation? What, did he say "Thou shalt not bump off thy neighbor."? Not very smart of god to leave something so important like that up for debate.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

Government soldiers take lives in war, and cops take lives in gun battles on the streets. Is it your stance that both should be permanently disbanded?

If "the right to life" was so sacrosanct, the founding fathers would have never had a revolution to begin with, since people die in war. If either the Declaration of Independence or the 8th Amendment to the Constitution precluded the death penalty, capital punishment would have been outlawed in the 1700s. That didn't happen, so obviously, that was not the intent of passages in those documents that our country was founded on.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Beerdood]

His argument was not that the death penalty is *only* a deterrent (in fact I don't think he said anything about deterring future crime). The argument was more that some people are so distant from humanity that they basically deserve to be removed from society permanently. You could do that with prison too, but if there's no chance of rehabilitation then perhaps they're better off dead so it's not costing taxpayers money.

Not saying I necessarily agree with these views, but I can see the reasoning behind this. Deterrence isn't the only reason we punish people. By your logic, any existing punishment isn't a deterrent for all people, therefore we shouldn't punish people with prison. "So if life imprisonment of 25 years is not a deterrent, why again does the US have it?"

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[myth24601]

I would rather we abolish the Death Penalty and give people convicted of 1st degree murder life without parole in solitary with no interaction with other inmates.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Government is predicated on delegating a right to violence. You have an inherent right to violence, in that it cannot be taken from you without pretty much killing you. We delegate this right to violence because we want rules about how and when it is used. It is entirely reasonable to say that one cannot delegate the right to self-murder.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Nemesisghost]

But I would argue that criminals don't sit back and have a leisurely debate about the pros and cons of committing a crime that would engender capital punishment, prior to carrying it out. If anything such crimes are committed on a more emotional/spontaneous basis.

Yet criminals do factor in criminal punishments when they commit their crimes. If this were not the case, the murderers wouldn't try so hard to cover up what they did & wouldn't go to lengthy measures to make sure either their deed goes undiscovered or that they cannot be tied to it. We wouldn't have drug dealers running to non-extradition countries to avoid the penalties of their crimes. Gangs & other criminal organizations would enforce a code of silence on their members and those around them if they weren't worried about being caught.

I would argue that very little crime is spontaneous or emotional. Criminal spontaneity does not exist, as the crimes one is caught doing is usually only the tip of the iceberg of one's behavior. Look at it this way, how many speeding tickets are given out to people whose only time speeding was at that exact instant in which they were observed by a policeman? Isn't more likely that they had a habit of speeding & just happened to be caught that one time?

As for crimes being emotional, that's rarely the case either. The emotion most closely associated with crime would be anger, and yet how often are people angry but don't go out on an unplanned murderous rampage? Other crimes often happen with a lack of emotion. Or did you think Bernie Madoff felt anything besides greed when he ripped off all those people? Did Edwin Ramos of MS-13 have any feelings when he murdered a father & his 2 sons b/c they cut him off? And do you think this guy actually cared about the infant he raped & murdered?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would add while it in fact does not deter violate or capital crime, mostly because that person never thinks or conceives they'll receive the death penalty during and after their crime, they almost always cut a plea deal to avoid it. And even if they refuse to cut a deal and receive a judgment of death, the state waits a number of years before they bother to execute that person.

So what is the point of having it? And now you have murderers trying getting into shoot outs with police, or committing suicide, so they dont spend the rest of their lives locked up in a cage, either life sentence or death. Defeats the whole purpose of using the death penalty as a 'tool of justice' when really no murder is thinking of it as they commit their crime/s. I never met or read a murderer stop and ask themselves 'will I receive the death penalty for this' -- 'oh wait I can't kill you because I am afraid of being executed' before they then proceed with their crime.

Kind off sarcastic to say that but prove me wrong.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ShanghaiBill]

we would be even better off if we didnt have 25 years of appeals.

No one involved in the process has any interest in streamlining it. Lawyers make millions off each case. Politicians can win votes by being "pro-death" without the risk of being responsible for killing an innocent person, since they will be retired by the time anyone convicted on their watch is actually executed. Death penalty opponents will try to throw any monkey wrench into the process, and even death penalty advocates need to be able to point to the "due process" to rebut claims that innocent people are being executed.

if someone is on death row based on circumstantial evidence, then give them the appeals.

Who gets to decide what is "circumstantial"? Cameron Todd Willingham was executed based on his own confession and "solid" evidence from arson investigators. Except the "confession" was fabricated by a fellow inmate that was paid to cooperate with prosecutors (and later tried to retract his testimony), the arson investigators were not using modern techniques, and Willingham's attorney was too incompetent to challenge them. It looked like an open-and-shut case at the time, but many people now believe that Texas killed an innocent man.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

And if he had been honest at his trial, he would have been found innocent then. But he lied, and the jury could tell he was lying. So the prosecution's case made sense, and the jury convicted him.

He also left his children to burn to death in a house fire, thinking only about saving his own ass. So, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for him. If my daughter was in a burning house, I would run into it to save her, even at the threat of my own life. Most parents would at least attempt to do so. He didn't, but claimed he did.

So, yes Texas most likely killed a man who didn't willingly kill his family. But he isn't the poster child of wrongful conviction you may think he is.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[immaterial]

Literally none of your post addressed the parent post's point. And given that the complex (and still obviously not stringent enough) process of "deeming someone unfit" to live actually costs society more than life improsonment, I don't see your point either.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

"so obviously killing someone who has wronged society is not against Biblical doctrine (for whatever that is worth)"

So what about the estimated 4% you have still murdered them.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ScentCone]

Stop projecting. I didn't say anything about "closure." I'm talking about whether or not someone who has made the conscious decision that other known to be innocent people do not deserve to live their lives, and who seeks out an opportunity to rape and torture them to death (and showing no remorse whatsoever, and every indication that he'd do it again) should be the recipient of any of your day's labor or mine, let alone that of the family of the person he decided to rape and torture and murder in front of the shallow grave he made her watch him dig. Keep your pop-psychobabble "closure" crap for people who like to ruminate about such things.

This is about whether or not to reward someone like that with continued life after they've decided that you, or your daughter or wife, don't themselves deserve the same. And that since she doesn't, he's going to end it after some recreational violent rape and torture before blowing big holes in her with a shotgun.

If you can't see that feeding and housing someone like that for decades and asking his victims - among others - to pay the ticket day in and day out ... if you process that in your head and arrive somehow at that being a good thing, then you're the one that needs some help. Because you've got a seriously bad case of mixed premises resulting in toxic moral relativism.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[unixisc]

B'cos the US is not a puppet/client state of the EU.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[houghi]

there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.

There is also no evidence that it did not encourage people from committing similar crimes.

When you look that punischment is much harder iin the US when comparing it to other countries AND that there are more people in jail then anywhere in the world, thougher punishment attracts criminal behaviour.

So lowering the punishment would reduce that attraction and tthys lower crime.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

Oh no you're totally wrong. This guy obviously only became a murderer and rapist because of a lack of prenatal care. Giving his mother some vitamins would have completely solved the problem.

Sarcasm aside, I agree with you on the eternal appeals that keeps these guys alive for decades. I say give them all one appeal, that includes all of the items from the trial that they can claim were wrong. That appeal is heard and decided within the year. If it is approved, they get a new trial. If it is denied, they get hanged the next day.

Because if one of the justifications against the death penalty is its cost, this will keep the cost down quite well.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[udippel]

Absolutely! But in this case, the line of guilt is not circumstantial evidence, witness statements of dubious quality, but a straightforward, clear manhandling of another person including burying her alive.
So what's to argue here?
And while I'm not too keen on capital punishment, an offender like that - what's the alternative? The only one we have is incarceration for life. How human is it, to put someone behind bars for life, knowing he'd die in prison, eventually of old age, having 'lived' in a small cell.
Why not the old testament / Jewish 'an eye for an eye' and likewise bury that person 6 feet below, and likewise alive?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so glad the courts haven't realized that life without parole in a tiny cell is cruel and unusual punishment, let's hope they keep it that way. I don't really have an issue with the death penalty but I love the fact that some real a-holes up here in Canada are doing 23.5 hrs a day in a little cell. Way better then the death penalty.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

let's not forget HOW he killed her - he buried her alive. I think he got EXACTLY what he deserved.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[oji-sama]

Although I am no proponent of the death penalty, your logic is flawed. Although in this case the penalty was not an effective deterrent, there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.

I wonder. Are less similar crimes committed in states (or countries) with death penalty than in states (or countries) without? Related to this, United States has pretty hefty prison population, thus the country should be pretty much crime free because of all the deterrents....

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[udippel]

Raping the offender? No
Burying the offender alive like what he did to his victim? Why not, actually?
I am most hesitant with capital punishment, but here the guilt is not questioned, and not disputed.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

Only because of the endless appeals, and we are paying both sets of lawyers, court costs, guards, and all living expenses for decades. If you want to lower the cost, kill all convicted murderers and rapists within a month of their conviction. Throw in Enron-style grand larceny convictions as well, so it won't be called racist.

That ought to take care of old lobster head.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty.

Your claim is so insane that I can't tell if you're referring to just the death penalty, or actually being tortured to death like Clayton Lockett.

Read what this guy did and then tell me he doesn't deserve to die.

Sure. He doesn't deserve to die. No one deserves to die, you sick son of a bitch.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

Murder and rape are not "21st century crime"s. They are as old as humanity, and can be dealt with as they have been for thousands of years.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[udippel]

I have to doubt that locking up for life is actually cheaper. Okay, a prison is no 3-star hotel, but a lot of items, food, clothing, medical care, heating, eventual air-conditioning, etc. and not to forget round-the-clock guards .... No, I can't believe that.
Revenge is a strange animal in this context. He found it 'okay' to bury someone alive. If it is okay for him, what's wrong with doing the same on him?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

"Murder" is a legal fiction. As in one person killing another person is only defined as "murder" by the legal system itself. So, whatever version of one person killing another person is permitted by the legal system, by definition is not murder.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ShanghaiBill]

Giving his mother some vitamins would have completely solved the problem. Sarcasm aside, ...

Why the sarcasm? Do you actually think it isn't true? Low birth weight, folic acid deficiency, and lead exposure are all correlated with low IQ and criminality.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

I'd be fine with you giving it to me, if in exchange all people convicted of murder, rape, child molestation, grand theft, public corruption (as in politicians taking bribes), and corporate corruption (CEOs financially raping their company as with Enron) were swiftly executed upon conviction.

I would go to my death knowing my family would be much safer in the future, and that is all that matters to me.

Also, good to see you think people who disagree with you should die. Should I hazard a guess as to your political affiliation?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this line of thinking (that since the death penalty was in effect when he committed the crime means that the death penalty isn't a deterrent) is the fact that the death penalty is not the de facto punishment for any crime. I'm not advocating for the death penalty, or any specific penalty, but when talking about the deterrence of any penalty, that penalty must be the default and unquestioned outcome of breaking a law.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

If the guy hadn't left his kids to die in a house fire, he wouldn't have been convicted. If he had admitted he left his kids to die in a house fire, he wouldn't have been convicted.

Instead, he left his kids to die in a house fire, thinking only to save his own skin. He then lied about trying to save his children, when it was obvious he hadn't. The jury went with the story that made sense, since this guy was lying about his actions.

Did he deserve to die? No.

Am I broken up that he died? No.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Nukenbar]

There actually many ways I can kill someone and it is not murder, or even illegal.

And I don't even live in Florida!

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet criminals do factor in criminal punishments when they commit their crimes. If this were not the case, the murderers wouldn't try so hard to cover up what they did & wouldn't go to lengthy measures to make sure either their deed goes undiscovered or that they cannot be tied to it. We wouldn't have drug dealers running to non-extradition countries to avoid the penalties of their crimes. Gangs & other criminal organizations would enforce a code of silence on their members and those around them if they weren't worried about being caught.

The problem is that all of the things you mention are about people who *do* commit crimes and try to avoid being caught, not people who *don't* commit crimes because they *know* they'll get caught. The whole point is that criminals think they can avoid being caught.

Yes, they worry about the punishment. But people try to get out of $20 traffic tickets. If the punishment for murder was a $200 fine, people would still try to get out of it. Of course at that extreme, I can readily see people being willing to accept the possibility of being caught and factoring it in. But any sort of punishment of 5 or 7 years or more of jail? At that point, most people just can't begin to grasp the terms of that punishment. To most people, it's equivalent to a death sentence as their life will be destroyed and it's unclear if they'll ever recover normalcy afterwards.

So, even acknowledging that there's a ring of truth to your statement, the simple fact is the scale of difference between the possible suggested punishments is so minor, that it's really not the deciding factor. The prevailing factor is the risk of being caught.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

So, if they had used a bullet within a month of his conviction, you would be fine with capital punishment?

Because that's what I'm reading.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Jiro]

By your reasoning, locking someone up in jail is just kidnapping.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Lord Apathy]

"The blood of the First Men still flows in the veins of the Starks, and we hold to the belief that the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword"

George R. R. Martin, Game of Thrones

While I am pro death penalty in many cases and a strong believer in hanging I believe the quote above has some merit. If the prosecutors or the judges where required to pull the switch, then I believe we wouldn't have such a rush to impose the death penalty.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

He deserves to die.
And he will. It's not our job to kill him.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[dreamchaser]

The very epitome of an ad hominem. Well done.

There was no ad hominem there. Straw man maybe, but it was not an ad hominem.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ShakaUVM]

>Secondly, what about the estimated 4% of people on death row who are innocent. There are people who, for various reasons (e.g. overzealous prosecutors, incompetent defense attorneys, corrupt police planting/hiding evidence, etc), were convicted of crimes that they didn't commit

Though the internet urban legend machine exploded with this myth, that's not what the study proved.

It showed nothing more or less than there's a correlation between how much money you spend on lawyers, and how likely you are to get your sentence reduced or acquitted.

So if you threw infinite money at lawyers, maybe 4% more people on death row would get resentenced to life in prison.

This doesn't actually mean they are innocent, kemosabe.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[TechNeilogy]

Pondering that quote was what changed my mind on capital punishment a couple of decades ago. We shouldn't execute even monsters not because they are not monsters, but because we are not.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[jfengel]

The Constitution specifically follows its version of that clause with "without due process" (amendment 5):

No person shall be ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

For better or worse (and clearly "worse" in this case), due process was followed. The best legal (as opposed to moral) argument against the death penalty is that due process isn't always followed scrupulously: many cases are overturned only by heroic efforts of lawyers, frequently working for little or nothing because the people who had money are unlikely to have received a capital sentence in the first place. Our system of justice seems poor at granting due process under the best of circumstances, and one could argue that there simply isn't due process that can justify the death penalty.

The "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" line is from the Declaration of Independence: a noble and important founding document, but lacking the force of law for a reason. That's not how or why it was written. For better or worse, the Constitution was deliberately crafted with "due process" in mind, and they clearly considered the death penalty to be a valid option.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[kellymcdonald78]

Except it typically costs more (a lot more) to execute someone vs. incarcerating them for life.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

A penalty is something you can walk away from and learn from it

Where in the world did you get the idea that a penalty has to be a teachable event? Certainly not from the dictionary. Or common usage. Or the legal system.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[wagnerrp]

The death penalty is not a punishment. The death penalty is society deciding you are broken and unfit to continue being one of its members.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

To further employ your logic: given that prison was in existence prior to his crime, yet the perp still did what he did, it seems that the threat of punishment as no deterrent. If prison is not a deterrent, why not just let everyone run free?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are some truly terrible crimes that can't be addressed any other way. I can appreciate what the EU is going for. Most of them do not believe in the death penalty, and it is wholly right that they not let their pharma companies participate. But even if we had no drugs, we would probably just go back to hanging, the electric chair, or firing squad. The death penalty isn't about deterring would-be criminals (though it does some, surely). It's about pure, simple punishment.

Here in Austin, Texas, I'm in a liberal city of an otherwise very conservative state. Texas executes more people a year than any other state. The even more liberal Austin Chronicle newspaper* actually has a regular column, "Rick Perry Deathwatch," named after our unfortunate choice of governor.

There are two things which I hate about the Deathwatch: first, that it's the one thing we can't actually blame Rick Perry for, because he doesn't have the power to issue pardons. Second, that I would really, really like to be anti-death-penalty, but every time I read it I can't help but be horrified and think the world is truly better without these people. An example: "There is no question that Diaz killed Nichols in a botched robbery," stabbing him 94 times in front of a witness (also stabbed, survived).

I would like to believe that most of these are heat-of-the-moment incidents, or lesser crimes gone horribly wrong, or people in a bad situation who were pulled in against their will. But they aren't. They're mostly career criminals who got caught for something truly gruesome. I would like to believe that the death penalty is an unnecessary measure. But after reading most of these cases, I just can't. Some people are just horrible through long years of practice at being horrible, acting with foresight and intent until they get caught, then imprisoned with no desire to reform.

(*Note: not the subscription daily paper of record, which would be Austin American-Statesman; but rather a well-done, ad-supported "weekly freebie" sort of paper of long standing.)

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Talderas]

Sure it did. Who is a waste of taxpayer money? Those that the justice system has deemed unfit for society.

It doesn't matter to me how much it costs to arrive at that judgment (through appeals) but once that judgment has been made there's no point for society to continue supporting those individuals.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

The sarcasm is because those things affect millions of people, and millions of people don't turn into murderers and rapists. Saying you oppose the death penalty because of lack of prenatal care is a cop out in my opinion.

Does your opposition to the death penalty vanish if the convicted murderer came from a good home with plenty of pre- and post-natal care? If not, it isn't a valid point, because your opinion doesn't hang on it.

The other part of your argument also doesn't hold up very well. As I've said in other posts, get the system under control, and "the billions spent every year to execute a handful of criminals" would shrink to under a million. Rope and bullets are cheaper than decades of lawyers. So if you want to save billions of dollars, and then give all poor women better health care, execute the worst criminals a month after their conviction.

In conclusion, yes sarcasm was warranted for your post. Because it claimed two things that are not at odds with capital punishment, but tried to use them to prove capital punishment is wrong. Personally, I am fine with you guys that oppose capital punishment. I've voted for politicians that are opposed to capital punishment. I don't think we are at the stage where we can ensure no innocent person is convicted. You do want to make the system better. In that, I support you.

I just happen to think society would be better off with a strict and swift capital punishment system. Innocent people are being killed and raped every day. Innocent people are also being arrested or convicted, and then imprisoned, every day. Not executing murderers and rapists isn't keeping innocent people from being killed, raped, or imprisoned.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty. Read what this guy did and then tell me he doesn't deserve to die.

I read what he did and I'm telling you NO ONE ever deserved to die.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it strange that people who claim to value life so highly have problems with the death penalty in cases where a murderer has willingly taken the life of another. The death penalty is a just punishment in such cases.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[wolfstemple]

Because we're not a bunch of limp wristed Euro-weenies that give child rapists 6 months in jail and murderers a year, and want to expunge their record in 5 years, and crawl into bed at night wondering if we were to harsh on those poor people. We kick ass and take names and fucking don't care.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Methinks you don't know what ad hominem means. Ad hominem can most easily be described as attacking the credibility of the author in order to discredit his statements.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

The death penalty is a just punishment. Punishments do not have to be deterrents.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[InsultsByThePound]

Don't like a group? Declare their activities illegal and arrest them. Then declare that all they are doing is sitting in jail taking up taxpayer money and execute them to save some cash.

Sounds good to me.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[AmiMoJo]

Morally there is no difference. If killing people is morally objectionable then it doesn't matter who does it, all that matters is the circumstance. Generally speaking in most countries the only justification for killing someone is self defence, and that applies equally to the state and individuals. States with the death penalty are an exception.

For the state to hold someone against their will there needs to a legal process that is supposed to protect their rights and determine and fair outcome. There are situations where a citizen can detain someone as well, if they have a legitimate reason to do so and it remains within the bounds of the law. If someone is convicted and then escapes imprisonment many jurisdictions allow citizens to detain them until the state can take over. Many places have citizen's arrest laws too.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I am no proponent of the death penalty, your logic is flawed. Although in this case the penalty was not an effective deterrent, there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.

"Any assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --Christopher Hitchens

If we can not prove specific cases where people actively chose not to commit capital crimes because, and only because, they feared the death penalty then we must dismiss the notion entirely. It simply does not happen unless there is evidence for it.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[OzoneLad]

For these reasons, and a whole host of others, these people have decided the basic rules of society do not apply to them. As a result they need to be removed. Keeping them alive does nothing except waste taxpayer money on people who will never be productive members of society.

Why are you talking about Congress all of a sudden?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

It isn't a deterrent because criminals know they have a 0.1% chance of being executed within a year of committing the most heinous murder, and a 0.0% chance of being executed for anything else (other than in Texas).

Put that up to 99% chance for all murder convictions, and what does that do to deterrence after five years?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[AmiMoJo]

Generally speaking the murder rate in the US is quite high for a modern, democratic country. States with the death penalty doesn't seem to have any automatic advantage over those that don't. When the death penalty is removed crimes for which it used to be the punishment don't increase.

So yes, the GP's logic was flawed, but his conclusion happens to be the right one.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion if you want to execute someone you should do it using this method:
1) Put explosives around the person's head.
2) Place the person in a hole in the ground or in an explosion proof room.
3) Set off the explosives.

Before any pain signals can arrive at the brain telling the brain of damage, the brain is already gone.

This is as painless as it gets assuming you can't use anesthetics before step 1), due various reasons. If you want you could surround the whole body with explosives to make sure you destroy the stomach "brain" and other similar things.

Some people might prefer torturing murderers. Beware of such people and beware of becoming like them. Also keep in mind that the marvels of medical technology mean that we can probably keep a person alive for a near normal lifespan while administering all sorts of torture during that whole time. Hopefully you are living in a country where that would still be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[WrongMonkey]

Since when? Tell me about this method for giving back the years of someone's life when they've been wrongfully imprisoned.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[bluefoxlucid]

Then, in this case, we should not fear what we do. It may disgust us, as it has, but that is good; we are well to understand precisely what we do. We know firmly why we do it, and that we make no mistake.

We find our actions necessary, yet disturbing. We will not take such actions lightly in the future; we will assure their necessity.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Death sentence is never justified. Incarcerate him. Done.

... in your opinion.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[micahraleigh]

The US took away the death penalty for a number of years in the 70's.

This correlated highly with a major boost in violent murder rates.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea of a limited democratic government is that its main function should be to defend the rights of the people.

Unfortunately, I think our current government has certainly abandoned that principle. I just hope we can someday get it back without resorting to pitchforks and guillotines.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the only argument against capital punishment IMHO.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

"a lot of educated people in the criminal law field who agree with me that the death penalty is not a deterrent"

This is my problem with "educated people". So, they are saying that the criminal who was killed will not be deterred from doing it again? Really? How does that work? I'm thinking when the state executes someone, at least ONE person is deterred.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[hene]

Because some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty. Read what this guy did and then tell me he doesn't deserve to die.

Punishment is often mixed with revenge. There is no need to hurt these people or take their lives. They just need to be kept away from normal nice people, if they are not capable to follow rules. With smaller crimes there should be possibility to return society, in case they are grown up and ready to follow rules (yes this sometimes happens).

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[oodaloop]

You're right. We can't go back in time and give back years in prison. All we can do is release them and say sorry. But this is hardly a good reason to execute someone. To me, this means we should be as certain as possible we are convicting the right person.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[interkin3tic]

I see nothing about what the guy factually "did", only what he's been accused of and convicted of by courts made up of fallible humans.

"Deserve" also is questionable. I don't know how to define justice, but I do know it's not "revenge" or "trying to make two wrongs into a right."

You do answer the question though: the US still has it because of the revulsion we feel for criminals, it makes the anti-death penalty side more apathetic and the pro-death penalty side more motivated. When I was reading that article, I was considering doing something on the order of posting it to facebook. Then I read the bit about raping and killing an 11 month old and my reaction was "Weeeeell, maybe I won't even bother posting it to facebook."

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[MozeeToby]

If we forgo execution to save an innocent man, but condemn two more to die, we have failed; it is necessary to accept our flaws and do what is necessary to save lives.

Nope. I'd rather a raving, murderous madman kills 2 innocent people than "the system" kills 1. To put it bluntly, the system represents me. I am, in some small way, responsible for it's actions. I am responsible for what I do and what is done in my name, I am not responsible for what a random murderer does.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

All human rights are are things that society has decided they can exact violation retribution on people for violating.

Declaring any system of justice - whether tribal or first world - to be something other than an organized system for inflicting revenge is like declaring that humans arent really animals (or "special" animals) and that there is such a thing as a soul...in other words, fucking retarded.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do we deserve when we accidentally put an innocent person to death?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[sjames]

Actually, there have been a few people executed that were proven innocent posthumously.

That makes at least those executions a murder.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[stoploss]

The State can never provide enough proof to justify the Death Penalty.

The problem with absolute statements is that it only takes one counterexample to disprove them.

They did a superb job earning their death penalty.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thisis why we don't hang in Arizona anymore. Also it is a cruel fate to hang someone. Bullets are too unreliable. Gas Chamber is to expensive and dangerous if not maintained, and lethal injection... well we saw what happened there.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[sjames]

I am tempted to argue that anyone who could do that has to be mentally ill. No sane person could do such a thing in the first place. Even if there was temporary mental illness, any sane person would kill themselves rather than live with the memory of it.

So, do we kill the sick now?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

"it is better to err on the side of not allowing state-sanctioned killing of people who pose no threat."

That's a grand idea, until you smack up against reality. Prisons get crowded,, so criminals are let go early, to make room for more. Oh, and also for the ones you just let go, when they go back out and commit more crimes. And yes, even murderers are let go early. Never mind how many people are convicted of murder and get a whopping five or seven years for their crime. Now THAT is justice! (yeah, that was sarcasm).

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[bluefoxlucid]

I peer down an alley.

A 13 year old girl is being raped by three large, muscular men.

I have a gun.

I go about my business. I am not responsible for this, and there is no weight of morality on my head for doing nothing with the power I possess.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[coinreturn]

there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.

There is also no evidence that it did not encourage people from committing similar crimes.

No shit, Sherlock. I also made no such claim. I only pointed out the OP's flawed logic.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not the old testament / Jewish 'an eye for an eye' and likewise bury that person 6 feet below, and likewise alive?

I believe that you mean Hammurabi code (the first true legal code to be codified) states "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one mana of silver. If one destroy the eye of a man's slave or break a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price. If a man knock out a tooth of a man of his own rank, they shall knock out his tooth. If one knock out a tooth of a freeman, he shall pay one-third mana of silver."

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not the old testament / Jewish 'an eye for an eye' ...

I find your understanding of "eye for an eye" to be disturbing. Granted, you have a lot of company in taking this interpretation, but it is still disturbing nonetheless. It was never meant to be interpreted as "they did it, so we get to do it right back to them!" The original intent was that punishment should be proportionate to the offense; mercy and leniency were always an option. Or, at least, that is my understanding. And since you have openly implicated Judaism in this, I just want to share this quote with you (taken from the Mishnah, tractate Makkoth 1:10):

A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says that this extends to a Sanhedrin that puts a man to death even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: Had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says: they would have multiplied shedders of blood in Israel.

...and likewise bury that person 6 feet below, and likewise alive?

We don't do such things because it would lower ourselves to the level of monsters. That is the real danger in what you are proposing.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only because of the endless appeals, and we are paying both sets of lawyers, court costs, guards, and all living expenses for decades. If you want to lower the cost, kill all convicted murderers and rapists within a month of their conviction.

Yeah, sure. Due process is so out-dated now. That should solve everything!

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[smooth wombat]

The interpretation comes from the ancient Hebrew writings which (supposedly) outline what the big guy said. As there have been a few years since the writings were created, and not many people still understand that form of language, they've misinterpreted what those writings said.

This was compounded by the Christians not understanding what the original words were and changing the meaning.

I'm not making this up. Go read the history of how this particular commandment has been misinterpreted for ages.

Here is a good explanation of why people get it wrong and this onecomes from the Jewish perspective (ignore the vegetarianism portion).

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[sandytaru]

It would have cost the state about three million dollars to leverage a death penalty case against him. The jail he is in costs $30K/year to support an inmate. He's not going to be there a hundred years, so it's cheaper to keep him locked up than to try to kill him in revenge.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[WrongMonkey]

How people have been wrongfully convicted and served life sentences? You're betting human lives either way.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

The post I replied to only mentioned the cost of execution. If that is the only criteria the person is concerned with, not due process or wrongful convictions, than the reality of the costs should be mentioned. Notice I didn't say that I support killing the convicted murderers within a month of their conviction. Only that that would resolve the cost issue the poster took issue with.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[sandytaru]

Since this was not a death penalty case, and the dude admitted guilt and waived his right to a jury trial as part of the plea bargain, no jury ever got involved.

Now, the accused in these cases can always demand a jury trial and claim innocence, at which point the state may try for the most aggressive charges in the hopes that something will stick. If the prosecution is going to go for the death penalty above the wishes of the victim's family (it does happen), the trial automatically goes to jury. The whole process gets dragged on for years and years.

We were over and done in a week. A painful, miserable week. But I didn't waste years of my life traveling back and forth to the city where my mother was killed for the trial. I probably would have lost my job. My sisters lived even farther away. Locking him up and throwing away the key without trying to get him killed in revenge allowed us to pick up the pieces and resume our own lives without becoming additional victims of that guy as well.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ImprovOmega]

Because of people like this. Or the person (or people) who thought it would be fun to put cats in a bag and beat them to death, or the guy who raped and killed an 11-month old.

Umm....look, I think beating a bag of cats to death is horrific and all, and certainly the product of a disturbed mentality, but beating a bag of animals to death isn't in the same ballpark as rape and murder of a person. With the animals you're looking at a psych eval and if that passes then 5 years prison time (maybe) for cruelty to animals charges.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Seems that states with the death penalty have more murder per capita. The deterrent argument doesn't seem to hold much water.

I'm all for locking up people for a goodly long time, killing people for murder seems, shall I say, hypocritical.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation needed]

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to kill someone the other day but then I remembered death penalty and watched a movie instead. Seems legit.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[poetmatt]

100% wrong. Read what this man did and then ask yourself how we've set up a society that let him get to that point, and we're not just talking about guns.

We're talking about the behaviors that enabled things to get to this point. Why have we created a society where we have such corruption that people are choosing to resort to robbery, for example?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[xevioso]

This makes a mess. A mess that affects other people who have to clean it up, more so than just burying the guy after he dies after an injection.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

The most frequently tendered answer is that often times this kind of criminal does not respond to "rehabilitation", even in strictly clinical settings. (EG, given 24/7 psychiatric care, and not the "concrete wall flavor" provided by the justice system) This means that you have 3 choices.

1) let them go, and accept that they *WILL* recidivate.

2) Keep them in the justice system forever to prevent the inevitable recidivism.

3) Accept that rehabilitation is not possible, that purpetual incarceration is not a viable option logistically, that releasing them will emperil the population at large-- and that the most direct means of meeting the state's mandate of providing safety to the public is to terminate the individual's life.

Typically, the "capital punishment is simply unacceptable!" argument is based on the faulted precondition that all inmates can be rehabilitated.

This is simply untrue, and recidivism statistics clearly show this to be untrue.

The REAL issue to bring up is that often times, at least in the US anyway, the state does not properly perform due dilligence in condemning an individual to capital punishment in the first place, and thus have failed to properly determine even true culpability for the crime committed, let alone the degree of rehabilitation possible with the individual in question.

Texas in particular, is INFAMOUS for condemning innocent people, KNOWINGLY, just to close cases-- and being PROUD of this fact.

I dont consider capital punishment itself to be barbaric-- I find the issue to lie with holding the state accountable to its mandate to provide due process and due dilligence to all persons in the justice system, rather than acting according to expediency or convenience.

Essentially, it's the classic issue of who minds the minders.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ShanghaiBill]

And if he had been honest at his trial, he would have been found innocent then.

... and if he had no tattoos, he would still be alive today. He had a tattoo of a skull and serpent that was shown to the jury during the sentencing phase of his trial. The jury was also shown his Iron Maiden posters. That, plus his incompetent attorney, may be why he got death instead of life imprisonment.

The guy was no saint. Neither is anyone else on death row. But that doesn't mean they are guilty, and it certainly doesn't mean it is okay for them to die for lack of saintliness. This guy was executed, not because he was guilty, but because he was poor and stupid.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

You might find this shocking, but there are some people that actually believe they can get away with a crime.

And some people have actually succeeded!

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The only conclusion I can realistically see is pure revenge by the rest of society."

And why is that a problem?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

And if he had been honest at his trial, he would have been found innocent then. But he lied, and the jury could tell he was lying. So the prosecution's case made sense, and the jury convicted him.

He also left his children to burn to death in a house fire, thinking only about saving his own ass. So, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for him. If my daughter was in a burning house, I would run into it to save her, even at the threat of my own life. Most parents would at least attempt to do so. He didn't, but claimed he did.

So, yes Texas most likely killed a man who didn't willingly kill his family. But he isn't the poster child of wrongful conviction you may think he is.

I'm all for shitty parenting bearing a mandatory death sentence .

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[kernel_user]

What about exile ? But don't we put him on an island in the middle of the ocean with other people like him so that they can start their own society ?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[kernel_user]

Why don't we bleed them to death, like I do with my chicken ?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[omnichad]

Because apparently death is only cruel if it hurts. Or at least that's how our constitution has been interpreted.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ShakaUVM]

>Actually, there have been a few people executed that were proven innocent posthumously.

Indeed. With DNA testing and the like.

The survey posted is just a statistical study that looked at no actual cases, that estimated the number of people that would get off or have their sentences reduced if they had more money to spend on lawyers.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[wagnerrp]

What about an island off the Hudson River? We could demolish the bridges, flood the tunnels, and mine the harbor.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we have the death penalty.

What you are advocating is state-sanctioned vengeance. I don't think vengeance--state-sanctioned, or otherwise--is a good idea. Your screed also makes it apparent that you may have some emotional issues that could benefit from therapy. You might want to look into that.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[sjames]

But since there exist people known to have been wrongly executed and a few more exonerated after their last appeal was done (but fortunately before their execution), the original point stands.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[nukenerd]

We can give the other two [liberty and happiness] back when we convict the wrong person.

No, you cannot give back someone's lost years if they have been wrongly given a jail sentence. Does that mean however that we must not even imprison anybody, in case we get it wrong? If you believe that, then try living in a country (there are some) where law enforcement has broken down such that guys get away with anything.

Punishment decisions have to be made.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, how do you decide who is a "waste of taxpayer money"?

Life is sacred, which is why the Republican platform has, up until now, held that abortion is evil. We should do anything we can to prevent the abortion of the Lord our Savior and the Second Coming. Well, anything other providing medical care for the mother, or any tax benefit to the kids once born. He's the son of G-d, I'm sure he'll do fine once he gets out.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is okay for him, what's wrong with doing the same on him?

Because we don't want to stoop to his level? Seriously, how much of your humanity are you willing to sacrifice for vengeance?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[nukenerd]

So if the death penalty is not a deterrent, why again does the US have it?

Simple, it gets rid of the perp.

I've seen figures that suggest locking someone up for life is actually cheaper to do (given all the appeals, special wings etc).

That's the USA. You need to streamline things a bit. It was not long ago that the convicted was taken straight out and hung. Cost the rope, and even that could be re-used. While that was extreme, the repeated legal appeals nonsense needs to be reformed.

The only conclusion I can realistically see is pure revenge by the rest of society.

How about :-
Removal of their threat from society
Avoids their possible future release by some future trick cyclist who thinks he has "cured" them, only to re-offend
Avoids their possible future release in some civil disorder
Avoids the cost of endless legal appeals
Avoids of sympathy-seeking media interviews and journo's making careers out of taking sides with them
Certain removal of their genes from the gene pool
Avoids possible organising further criminal activities from prison, in the case of gang leaders
No accomodation costs (see comment above)

All the "avoidance" items above have occurred in past cases.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[omnichad]

Their entire post was about the wrongly accused. You addressed exactly none of it.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. There is a *huge* moral difference.

Strangely enough, it lies in the area that you go on to say is "all that matters", aka: the circumstance. States with the death penalty simply acknowledge that self defense extends to *all* of their citizens, and sometimes people who have demonstrated that they are ready, willing, and able to slaughter innocent people without cause or qualm, are something that innocent people should be defended from. The death penalty is state-enacted self-defense of it's citizens.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it did. Who is a waste of taxpayer money? Those that the justice system has deemed unfit for society.

It doesn't matter to me how much it costs to arrive at that judgment (through appeals) but once that judgment has been made there's no point for society to continue supporting those individuals.

I'm not sure you want to use that as your litmus test of who deserves to live or die. Just out of curiosity, how old are you? How is your health holding up lately? Are your mom and dad in good physical and mental health?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Cederic]

In the UK if those men die during your efforts to prevent that rape, it's self defence and you're acting legally.

If they stop raping the girl, put their hands up and stand there until the police arrive, if you shoot them it's murder.

Is it really so difficult to differentiate between actions during an event and actions long after the event has finished?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Cederic]

Nah, just send in some pigs.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

Basically, I agree with you on this guy. He got shafted. And if all death penalty cases were like this I would agree to abolish it. But this case is not the normal death penalty case. There were many reasons he was convicted and sentenced to death. Foremost among those was his own lies. Which is why I said he isn't the poster child for wrongful conviction.

The part of his case I found hardest to believe, when I read about it a couple years ago, was how wrong the assumptions of the way fire behaves were. The movie "Backdraft" had some of the things that they thought was how fire behaved, and the prosecution's experts followed it like a training manual. Turns out they were wrong, as another fire showed later.

But how did they never test those theories before? Not just that local fire department, but at several fire departments all across the country, years earlier, and publish the findings so everyone else would know they were wrong in so many ways. I know they do controlled burns, so why didn't they know for sure the difference in how glass crazes and cracks from slow or fast fires? Or how fire leaves marks on the floor similar to having gasoline poured on the floor and lit?

Imagine if auto accidents were treated the same way, with investigators comparing accident scenes with "The Fast and the Furious". Or naval training being based on "Battleship". No professional would accept that level of ignorance of basic knowledge.

The main thing this case accomplished was to show that fire inspectors really had no idea about half the things they made decisions on. They were either idiots or criminally inept, depending on how much they tried to figure out about fire. And from the details, I would go with criminally inept. If the investigators were put on trial, I would support convicting them.

With all that said, the case still isn't enough to ban capital punishment. It is mistakes like this that push the system to be more accurate, just like the programs using DNA to get convictions overturned. Ideally, I would want a perfect system, but I know that isn't humanly possible. We need it to be as accurate as it can be.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Cederic]

Yeah, you've never been scared of death by burning to the extent that you couldn't bring yourself to risk the pain and death that would cause even to save your kids, or so ashamed of that afterwards that you'd like rather than have to admit it?

I can understand that. I still wouldn't fucking kill you for it.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

So by that logic you would be opposed to abortion then, since "killing somebody...is just murder?"

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[newslash.formatblows]

The thing they have in common is that both are making an irrevocable decision to end the life of another. Premeditated killing is not defensible, and the fact that the state (an emotionless constructed entity) does it makes it worse, not better.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[udippel]

Vengeance? It's no vengeance I'm in for. Actually, I would not want him tortured. My question was rhetorical. No, we should not stoop to the level of that.
Though - and you might not like it either - I have no qualms to see his eviction from the living part of the human race. His deeds have forfeited him all rights to live among humans; and if only because there is no regret, no extenuating circumstance, only bloody lust of hurting and killing that he has demonstrated.
He is, you may call me cynical if you want, however entitled to a torture-free death and that's what he was deprived of through the clumsiness of some medical staff.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

People die in automobile accidents, by your logic we should get rid of all automobiles.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[evilviper]

Life is sacred, which is why the Republican platform has, up until now, held that abortion is evil.

You have a good point. While generally opposed to abortion, I will support its use in any case where the fetus has been convicted of a capital crime, in a court of law.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

And punishing you in such a way that you are incapable of *ever* repeating the acts by which you demonstrated to society that you were broken and unfit to continue being one of is members.

The death penalty is the *ultimate* punishment, because it takes away *everything* from the perpetrator. It doesn't just take his money, or his livelihood, or his ability to repeat his crime.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for your loss

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[evilviper]

Actually, there have been a few people executed that were proven innocent posthumously.

I'm not aware of a single one in the US ever since the death penalty was suspended/reinstated (1976). If there has been a new development on that front, please point me to it.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

Thankfully, no I've never been in a house fire, so haven't been scared of death by burning. But I have been in other situation that could mean life and death, and my thoughts were on how to get out without anyone dying.

Mr. Willingham was lying on his bed sleeping, and his little daughter came up and said there was smoke or a fire. He jumped up, saw the smoke, and ran for the front door. His dead daughter was found on or near the bed. He didn't even think to grab her and take her with him.

I can say for certain, in that situation, I would have saved at least one child. This is why I don't have sympathy for him. When his child's life depended on him, he acted like a wild animal and ran. Because of his action, his daughter died.

I can understand that the other two children, the twins, were not able to be saved, because they were indeed in the inferno. But to leave the child who woke him up, that was unconscionable. Then to lie about it, all through the trial and right up until his death was near before confessing. Why am I supposed to have sympathy for him then?

If he had told the truth at the beginning, he wouldn't have been convicted. If he had told the truth after he was sentenced, his lawyer could have acted on it much sooner. He quite simply dug his own grave.

And don't worry. I wouldn't fucking kill you over this either.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[thesandtiger]

Mistakes are never made.

People certainly thought those guys deserved the "ultimate" penalty for what they did.

Further, appeals to emotion such as yours above are exactly why we shouldn't have a death penalty. I don't care what someone did, at the very worst we should lock them away, not kill them.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[oodaloop]

The fact that we do not have time machines does not lead me to the conclusion we should execute people. I never said I didn't support punishments, imprisonment, law enforcement, etc. But I do not support the death penalty. You're entitled to your own opinion and I'm entitled to mine.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

2/10. Try harder next time. The answer is yes, we do kill the sick.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Trailer Trash]

So its unacceptable for them to behave this way, but its ok if the state does it?

There is no moral equivalence. The state, in removing that man from existence, isn't preying on some randomly chosen innocent stranger with rape and murder in mind. That you find the two to be equivalent removes you from the pool of people who should ever weigh in on such subjects.

I would suggest that you read up on some cases of people found to be innocent after spending time on death row. In many of those cases the state (the police, DA, and/or judge) *were* preying on some randomly chosen innocent stranger with rape and murder in mind. It's just that they used the power of the state to perform those actions indirectly. That doesn't make it any better and - in my view - is actually far worse. The murderers that you're thinking about at least don't try to cover their actions with some veneer of civility.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is stupid. For the state to execute someone against their will there needs to be a legal process that is supposed to protect their rights and determine a fair outcome. We have that in place. We aren't executing criminals on suspicions or just as soon as they get dragged into the station. They get their trial. They have their rights. What the hell else do you want? It's a million times more courtesy than they gave their victims.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[evilviper]

Secondly, what about the estimated 4% of people on death row who are innocent.

Sitting "on death row" is no different than going to prison. You seem to be implying 4.1% of the executed are innocent, but that's not what the number means at all!

That 4.1% figure comes from the percentage of those on death row, who are exonerated in the NORMAL appeals process. In other words, they are not executed. It's a reassuringly-low false-conviction rate to begin with, and an example of the system WORKING AS DESIGNED, as they are all released.

They sometimes sit in jail for decades trying to get cleared.

Eliminating the death penalty will NOT help this at all.

In fact, it will make matters worse, as the same study determined that "resentenced defendants are eight times less likely to be exonerated than those on death row."

Sometimes they do (having lost years/decades of their life), sometimes they don't (cleared after they die in jail or are executed).

The same study you cited says you're wrong:

"once someone is executed, dies of natural causes, or commits suicide, the chance of being exonerated drops to nearly zero."

In other words, no, it essentially doesn't happen.

Furthermore, last time I checked, not a single condemned person in the US has been exonerated after execution, ever since the death penalty was suspended/reinstated (in 1976). Unless there's been recent news on that front, you can't cite a single one.

Better to keep a guilty person alive and in jail than to execute an innocent.

I don't agree. Leaving an innocent person to rot in a cell for decades is every bit as inhumane as execution, if not more-so. Removing the threat of the death penalty would allow our judicial system to get far more sloppy, and would remove the last reason for someone with a life sentence not to murder guards or other inmates, with no real consequences.

http://news.sciencemag.org/soc...

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Yeah, he hasn't been 'proven' innocent, since no one will ever expend the resources to do that. Also, Perry has been actively trying to derail the investigations into the case.

But, was Willingham wrongfully convicted? Absolutely.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

So its unacceptable for them to behave this way, but its ok if the state does it?

This argument has got to stop. I am 100% against the death penalty, and this statement hurts my position by associating me with morons.

Raping and killing a 6-year-old != Killing a rapist murderer who makes society a worse place

If you honestly can't see why some people would see a difference, please shut up simply as a favour to me. If you can understand the difference but think your argument still has merit, you'll need to write a lot more than a pithy one-liner to sway people to your point of view.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[evilviper]

I don't think justice systems are accurate enough to bet human lives on.

I HATE people who think that execution is inhumane, but locking someone away in a tiny prison cell with a large pool of violent and hardened criminals for decades is perfectly fine... "No harm done!"

If the justice system isn't accurate enough to allow executions, then it's not accurate enough to allow any long-term incarceration or punishment, either.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[SuricouRaven]

Because it isn't reliably painless. It depends upon the skill of the executioner to avoid pain. That was the problem with hanging, too: It could be painless if done right, but it was also really easy to botch. Also, anything to visibly bloody tends to unsettle people. The contradiction of modern execution: It needs to be painful enough to satisfy people's instinctive desire to see evil-doers punished, but clean enough that the barbarism can then be denied.

Any idiot can turn the nitrogen valve and wait until the ECG graph has been flat for ten minutes.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we kill those who are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing particularly heinous crimes that are so abhorrent to the concept of community and civilization that no lesser punishment is sufficient to ensure that the actions are not repeated in the future. Very few crimes sink to this level of depravity, and those which do not reach these depths are served with lesser punishments, such as life in prison (or even less, as appropriate).

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[evilviper]

He also left his children to burn to death in a house fire, thinking only about saving his own ass. So, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for him. If my daughter was in a burning house, I would run into it to save her, even at the threat of my own life.

You've never been near a major fire. It's not the abstract "threat" of possible death that stops you... It's the insane heat, guaranteed 3rd degree burns over your entire body in seconds even several feet away from the flames if you don't have fire fighter's protective gear, that most people can't possibly imagine until they've been up-close and personal with it.

Pour gasoline over your entire body, and light yourself on fire. Then spend two minutes doing any mundane task, without making any move to extinguish the fire and your melting skin the whole time. That's what running into a burning building is like. If you can't successfully overcome the urge to extinguish yourself while engulfed in flames, you wouldn't be able to overcome your body's overwhelming instinct to stops you dead in your tracks from running into a house fire. It's not like the movies.

saving his own ass. So, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for him.

That's a pretty fucked-up view. While we all hope to be macho and heroic when it really matters, a guy falling just a bit short, sure as hell doesn't deserve to be killed for it.

But how did they never test those theories before? Not just that local fire department, but at several fire departments all across the country, years earlier, and publish the findings so everyone else would know they were wrong in so many ways. I know they do controlled burns, so why didn't they know for sure the difference in how glass crazes and cracks from slow or fast fires? Or how fire leaves marks on the floor similar to having gasoline poured on the floor and lit?

This entire topic... the problem with forensic "science," was explained extremely well two years ago by Frontline, Episode "The Real CSI". Viewable on their website:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

SPOILER: The upshot is, forensics aren't a science. They were conceived and perpetuated by law enforcement agencies, and have NO theoretical basis, nor standards for the procedures, nor the individuals who are certified as experts. Even something basic like finger prints aren't unique at all, everyone always just assumed they were.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not believe that someone who has been deemed unfit to be part of society should be able to reap any benefits from it.

Spending your life in prison is not exactly "reaping the benefits" of society. In fact, it's quite deliberately being denied the greatest benefits of society - freedom, self-determination, etc.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

He also left his children to burn to death in a house fire, thinking only about saving his own ass. So, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for him. If my daughter was in a burning house, I would run into it to save her, even at the threat of my own life.

You've never been near a major fire. It's not the abstract "threat" of possible death that stops you... It's the insane heat, guaranteed 3rd degree burns over your entire body in seconds even several feet away from the flames if you don't have fire fighter's protective gear, that most people can't possibly imagine until they've been up-close and personal with it.

That's the thing though. The guy didn't have third degree burns, and his daughter didn't burn up. He had a slight singe, and she died of smoke inhalation. However you want to look at it is fine. But the guy left his child behind as he ran. The girl was right next to him, because she was who woke him up. All he had to do was put an arm around her, and then run.

As a matter of fact, your exact argument is how they knew he was lying. He claimed he tried to get to the twins in the front room, where the fire started. Yet he had no burns, and was only slightly singed. As you point out, he would have third degree burns if he was telling the truth. Yet, he insisted he wasn't lying, until it was too late to matter.

I've said it earlier, but I'll repeat it here. I don't think he deserved to die for what he did. But he dug his own grave, and it took years for him to do so. For that, I don't have much sympathy for him.

Thanks for the link. I bookmarked it and will watch it later when I have a chance.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[GameboyRMH]

The difference is that people on long-term incarceration can appeal their cases or be exonerated by new evidence.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[evilviper]

And also relevant is the "Death by Fire" arson episode Frontline did, specifically about the evidence in Cameron Todd Willingham's case.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

But he said, "It doesn't matter what people say, you can't let yourself catch on fire without trying to get away. And you can sit and say every day, I would burn up before I let my kids die in a fire," he said, "it's not humanly possible."

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[evilviper]

The difference is that people on long-term incarceration can appeal their cases or be exonerated by new evidence.

So can people on death row...

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[evilviper]

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[evilviper]

Because when you take a life, you cannot give it back if you find out that you made a mistake.

You can't give back the decades the person spent in prison, either... Now THAT'S cruel and unusual punishment.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't preying on some randomly chosen innocent stranger

But in about 4% of the cases, it does. Is that still OK?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[gweihir]

Quite wrong. "The law" pretends to be the source of the definition of "murder", but that is basically a lie to give it more credibility.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[gweihir]

Intent is what makes the difference. So, no, you cannot.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[gweihir]

It actually is. Just the "legal" variant. But if you make a false statement to a court and that gets somebody sent to jail, in many legal systems this will put you up for kidnapping.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[GameboyRMH]

For a while, yes...

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[gweihir]

It is no surprise that a sadist like you does not get it. Or does not like what it implies. "Punishment" is inflicting pain with the purpose to give the victim an insight and a chance to grow. But for you it is inflicting pain to give you a brief burst of lust. That is something else entirely and makes you scum.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[gweihir]

The question here is what "somebody" is. The religious definition "at conception" is clearly unmaintainable these days for anybody with even a shred of scientific understanding. Some other religions have placed the time babies become people as far as 90 days after birth and the reality may even be more extreme. The claim that abortion is "killing somebody" is just cheap propaganda, not based in fact. And the motivation is to generate more little followers to indoctrinate and exploit. If they could, the religious nuts would place this even earlier. Oh, wait, they do that by prohibiting masturbation.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[I'm New Around Here]

And if he had said that at his trial, or during his first appeal, he would be alive today.

I get it. He was convicted for a crime he didn't commit. (99.99% sure on that.) But he didn't have to run into the house to save one of his children. He just had to grab her rather than leaving her. And since he was not on fire at the time, he really has no point in that quote. In fact, he had to run past the fire to get to the front door. He could have grabbed his daughter and ran the other way, out the back door.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[evilviper]

Typically, upwards of a decade. I'd call that more than "a while".

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about exile ? But don't we put him on an island in the middle of the ocean with other people like him so that they can start their own society ?

G'day mate!

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[sjames]

Here's a few.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[omtinez]

Wrong! http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-...

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[ScentCone]

Your screed also makes it apparent that you may have some emotional issues that could benefit from therapy. You might want to look into that.

Nah, but your post makes it clear that you may have a sociopathic lack of empathy, or perhaps a strange affection for people like the guy in question - you know, the guy who deliberately raped, tortured, shot, and then buried alive the woman he was using for entertainment. Your pleasure at preferring him alive but in a cage for decades is, Mr. Coward, a surer sign of someone who needs help and some introspection.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[sysrammer]

I'd rather "the taxpayers dime" than the taxpayers millions.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[whoever57]

You missed one iitem:

Avoids bothersome re-trials or re-opening of inquiries when new evidence shows the now executed person might have been innocent.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[whoever57]

That 4.1% figure comes from the percentage of those on death row, who are exonerated in the NORMAL appeals process. In other words, they are not executed.

The study doesn't say that at all:

Although only 1.6% of defendants who had been sentenced to death were actually exonerated between 1973 and 2004, 4.1% of defendants were likely falsely convicted,

So, 2.5% (4.1 - 1.6) of defendents on death row are innocent and not exonerated. Undoubtably, some of those were executed.

Furthermore, last time I checked, not a single condemned person in the US has been exonerated after execution

Probably because efforts to help prisoners focus on on those who can still be helped: ie, those prisoners who were not executed. There was a case in Texas just a few years back where the primary evidence was opinions by an arson investigator. Opinions that were shown to be false when someone actually burned down a similar house and looked at the result as part of a proper study.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Sabriel]

We create governments to be for the people. We create governments to achieve what individuals cannot.

It should only be acceptable for the state to incarcerate someone if they are deemed to be a persistent threat to society and if the goal is #1, to rehabilitate them back into society or #2, to keep them away from society because they can't be rehabilitated (because we're not barbarians and we don't just murder someone if we can't get along with them, because no matter how awful they are we will not descend to their level).

Execution is the state admitting it can't achieve either goal. Execution is the state _failing_ to uphold its moral claim to existence.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Sabriel]

And if the state is denying them exile, then the state is not morally justified in executing them.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[petermgreen]

Afaict mostly to beat people who they never want to release into taking a plea bargin for life imprisonment.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I don't think the state should hold people either beyond whats absolutely necessary. If your not a significant risk to others life or limb (and that could even include murders in many cases) there should be no detainment. It's only reasonable to the extent its holding back a person from committing another wrongful act where it can be shown they will re-offend. Murdering people in the name of justice is wrong when detention is always sufficient and likely significantly beyond whats necessary to prevent re-offense.

We should have another concept of limited detention for people whom are not likely to threaten society if provided the right conditions. And I mean that if you must detain somebody because they are a risk to the elderly, children, etc or similar it doesn't necessarily mean a prison is essential to prevent re-offense. Simply cordoning off a sufficiently large area where people can work & play could work too. Think a town or city with more security, no young or old, and lots of incentives to develop businesses, education, therapists, self-help groups, etc.

As it is we already don't need to throw people into the limited detention camp or prison that we do. We wrongfully perceive a threat from many groups which the majority of those imprisoned were not in fact a threat. Only a small percentage within that population are actually a threat. It's like saying because some doctors are pedophiles we should incarcerate all doctors. It make no sense. All killers aren't necessarily likely to kill again (killing ones spouse for instance).

It sedans me when people say things like they want “justice for victims”. Using such words in place of “seek revenge” does not make it OK. The worst thing is most of the people in prison are the true victims. The system does more to pervert justice then seek it.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm sure the system has gotten it right 100% of the time as well.

All those budget deficits, cuts to DA & court staff, and a rise in incarcerations would never lead the mistaken execution of an innocent.

Oh wait. It has.

That alone is enough for to consider the death penalty a completely barbarous practice.

A system that allows this is a system that allows those in power to commit murder without consequences.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/study-1-25-death-cases-likely-innocent

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[shutdown -p now]

Actually, I would argue that if we spare one innocent from an execution, but at a cost of also sparing a genuine criminal who will then kill more (innocent) people, that moral equation is still in our favor. It's not just deaths themselves that matter, it's how they are caused. While letting a person be killed by a criminal is bad, executing an innocent is far worse - it ruins more than just one life, it also ruins the trust of people into the rule of law and the justice system.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[L4t3r4lu5]

He also left his children to burn to death in a house fire, thinking only about saving his own ass. So, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for him. If my daughter was in a burning house, I would run into it to save her, even at the threat of my own life. Most parents would at least attempt to do so. He didn't, but claimed he did.

I have a propensity for simplifying complex emotional subjects, but bear with me on this.

Your child is in your house, your house is on fire. The fire dept are on the way, you cannot safely get to your child. Here are some outcomes:

- You save the child, you are uninjured. Yay! Two lives saved.
- You don't save the child, you are uninjured. Life goes on. Maybe. One life lost, one life of doubt and self loathing.
- You save the child, you are injured. Your child is now your permanent carer through some emotional obligation. Two lives trashed.
- You don't save the child, you are injured. You wish you could end your suffering, but that's not allowed. Two lives trashed.

Ultimately, no matter what anyone says, you are the most important to you. If you're ruined, you cannot enjoy the joy you bring to others, you cannot be there to help them when they need it. I'm not saying live only for yourself, but take care of No. 1. Once you're gone, the universe ends from your perspective.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[L4t3r4lu5]

You're saying that you're happy with the current imperfect state of innocent people being killed. You're condoning state-sanctioned murder on factually incorrect evidence.

The level of doublethink is utterly astounding.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[coinreturn]

Although I am no proponent of the death penalty, your logic is flawed. Although in this case the penalty was not an effective deterrent, there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.

"Any assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --Christopher Hitchens

If we can not prove specific cases where people actively chose not to commit capital crimes because, and only because, they feared the death penalty then we must dismiss the notion entirely. It simply does not happen unless there is evidence for it.

Reading comprehension fail on your part. I made no such assertion.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[coinreturn]

Generally speaking the murder rate in the US is quite high for a modern, democratic country. States with the death penalty doesn't seem to have any automatic advantage over those that don't. When the death penalty is removed crimes for which it used to be the punishment don't increase.

So yes, the GP's logic was flawed, but his conclusion happens to be the right one.

Perhaps. Look where your argument leads you, though. The threat of death is most certainly the most extreme kind of threat of punishment. If the threat of death is not a deterrent to crime, then no threat of punishment can deter crime.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[msi]

and God actually said 'Thou shalt not kill'.

The correct interpretation is 'Thou shalt not murder'. A very significant difference. Besides, the Bible is full of tales of God telling people to kill someone, wipe out entire villages, towns and cities so obviously killing someone who has wronged society is not against Biblical doctrine (for whatever that is worth).

Are you suggesting that you have the same understanding of these situations as God?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[AmiMoJo]

If the threat of death is not a deterrent to crime, then no threat of punishment can deter crime.

That may not be far from the truth. Perhaps threats against your family might work, but evidence suggests that criminals tend not to be thinking about the consequences when they act most of the time. For example murders are usually either crimes of passion or related to other criminal activity (robbery, organized crime, gangs). The potential consequences are either not a factor or simply accepted as part of the job, and often the criminal expects to get away with it anyway.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[telchine]

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
    J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

I would be fine giving this particular man the death penalty.

That seems a bit harsh! I know his books were sometimes a bit boring but it's a pretty extreme punishment!

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[bluefoxlucid]

My point was that inaction is not moral absolution.

Punishments act as a deterrent when the punishment is effective--that is, when the punishment is both the most likely thing to occur as a consequence *and* when the punishment is perceived as severe.

For example: in peaceful, low-crime suburbs where the population is not acclimated to violence, a violent crime is unlikely to end in justifiable homicide (self defense by killing), and so whatever the state hands out as sentence is the most likely consequence. Conversely, in violent ghettos plagued by gang turf wars, the most common practical consequence of violent crime is hazard: gang criminals are killed more often in gang wars than they're arrested. The difference between a fine, jail time, and execution in the first group is what actually happens as consequence; in the second group, it's just a bunch of bullshit they don't have time to worry about because they're more concerned with the immediate risk of death than some abstract idea of state execution..

Likewise, in rich towns, fines are bullshit; in poor towns, people can be crippled and destroyed by a $40 parking ticket. The same punishment is more or less effective depending on the culture. Community service works well where people are generally law-abiding and afraid of the legal process itself; imprisonment and executions--both exceedingly harmful--are necessary when dealing with people who have no appreciation for the law. Executions are appropriate where capital criminals do not fear long imprisonment.

We posit two situations from the above: the situation where execution is not a deterrent; and the situation in which it is.

In the situation where execution is not a deterrent, executions do not save lives. Executing an innocent man is a loss of innocent life, which is harmful and to be avoided. We are morally obligated to this.

In the situation where execution is a deterrent, executions save lives. The effectiveness of executions has two parameters: Ratio of criminals to innocents and ratio of innocents executed to innocents saved. A good system may execute 99 criminals and 1 innocent while deterring enough murder as to save the lives of 10 innocents for every 1 innocent executed. A poor system may execute 1 criminal per 1 innocent, or save 2 innocents per 1 executed.

In either case where execution is a deterrent, withdrawing execution means more innocent people die in violent crime. Where it is not a deterrent, the error factor is infinite: any 1 innocent executed has a share in 0 lives saved, 1/0 is infinite, and we cannot justify this. Thus, where it is a deterrent, we are morally obligated to have state executions; where it is not a deterrent, we are morally obligated to not have state executions.

This does not go away when execution is not a deterrent. Imprisonment is harmful: a man imprisoned during a critical part of his life will lose or never develop his family and career, while becoming distant with his friends and financially ruined. We thus face the same: rather than executed versus save, the numbers are imprisoned versus saved: a poor system may imprison as many innocent people as criminals!

We cannot solve this by eliminating state execution. We must instead improve our system, both in swiftness and in accuracy. Some believe we execute 1 innocent man for every 24 violent criminals; this should become 1 innocent man for every 99 violent criminals, and then even higher. We should likewise attempt to stay execution where we feel it not to be a deterrent, and carry it out where we feel it is; this will increase the overall effectiveness, saving more innocent lives per execution, of which inadvertently executed innocents have a share.

We can improve in this way by improving the stricture of evidence required for execution; but we would gain the most benefit from improving the system wholesale. Such improvement will reduce the number of innocents in prison as well as the number of innocents exec

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[bluefoxlucid]

As opposed to ruining the trust of people for the law to protect them? Have you noticed that the police and the courts are the enemies of innocent men? Does it not offend you that the sight of police makes you feel paranoid rather than protected?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Stuarticus]

I bet you're super brave in all kinds of imaginary scenarios.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to ruining the trust of people for the law to protect them?

Why should people trust the law to protect them? That's the road to tyranny. "Give up your guns! You don't need them! Government (the law) will protect you!"

The law isn't here to protect you. When that criminal is in your or your loved one's face, "the law" isn't going to be there. The only one who can protect you is yourself. You have the second amendment. It has many valuable uses. Self defense is one of them.

Have you noticed that the police and the courts are the enemies of innocent men?

You're shooting yourself in the foot here. Those courts generally support capital punishment. How bad the system is today isn't a reflection of the lack of capital punishment.

Does it not offend you that the sight of police makes you feel paranoid rather than protected?

Oh it does offense me, and the way to fix that is remove the government's ability to kill people as much as possible. Death row being one such ability.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the prosecutors or the judges where required to pull the switch, then I believe we wouldn't have such a rush to impose the death penalty.

Bullshit. What you should learn from Game of Thrones is that sort of thing might work with the Good Guys like the Starks but definitely does not work on most of the rest. They'd be happy to swing that sword.

Kings, CEOs, even most "normal folk"[1] will be swinging that sword if they think it'll be good for them. Most will do it even if it's unjust.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[shutdown -p now]

As opposed to ruining the trust of people for the law to protect them?

It's also bad, but not as bad. I can try to protect myself if the state won't. But if the state decides to execute me, I have no recourse.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I though it's obvious- just fill in the hole?

If you can justify using the more expensive method of an explosion proof room I'm sure you can justify including an automated way of cleaning it.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, it is VERY hard to be executed these days. Go back to the old firing squad or public hanging within a week of conviction. Then we'd see a serious decline.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[DrStoooopid]

but it's perfectly okay for a f*cking animal to murder someone in cold blood? Seriously, dude, you don't live here, you don't know what happened, you don't know how terrible this crime was. F*ck off and go back to Europe.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

An overdose of heroin would be a much more humane way of passing someone to the other side that the drugs they are using.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[scottpig]

Keep in mind that Tolkien was Catholic and that it influenced his writing heavily. I suspect that the Church's teachings on the death penalty were at least partially what influenced this sentiment.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[FreedomFirstThenPeac]

Yeah, that worked real well with the Irish (Australia) and the French (Devil's Island). The real argument is whether we think all criminals can be redeemed. The belief in universal redemption sure worked well for the Catholic Church. Like abortion, this is an argument between two 0-1 parties with no middle ground. So take it elsewhere.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[FreedomFirstThenPeac]

It's a standard TypeI-TypeII error matrix, just tell me the rates of innocents who die because we failed to execute a criminal vs the rates of innocents we kill because we execute them. My earlier comment points to this, we have people who would kill a gazillion innocent prisoners to get one guilty man, conversely we have people who would let criminals take a gazillion innocent lives to keep from executing one innocent prisoner. The 0-1's of the world cannot event discuss how big a gazillion is, they are pegged to the meter extremes and cannot be part of a rational argument.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh...

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Robb Swanson]

Because some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty. Read what this guy did and then tell me he doesn't deserve to die.

Whether he deserves to die is a separate question from the legitimacy of the death penalty. I oppose the death penalty for one reason, and that is the fact that no system of justice can be made error free. So long as there is a risk of executing an innocent person, the death penalty cannot be considered a viable option.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it doesn't, unless your argument includes saying that State sponsored or at least legalised euthanasia is also okay.

The (probably) bad person did a very bad and inexcusable thing if actually correctly convicted - which is in no way certain.

The State decides it's fine with twisting a wild interpretation of Christian doctrine whilst ignoring the injunction against playing God by deciding the time and manner of someone's passing and then uses this to dress up what is actually Feudal eye-for-an-eye 'justice' as moral and compatible with life in a modern Democracy - and idiots fall for it, because it's easy to feel all angry and shout that the murdering scumbag should burn.

In the midst of all this, the so called deterrent totally fails to act as one because otherwise it would, y'know, deter people. Why not actually look at why these crimes are committed and do the hard stuff that prevents them in the first place? Then you wouldn't have to fake justice and the unfortunate victim of whatever led to the sentence would never have been a victim, and everyone could go home happy, with nobody getting killed and everybody's integrity intact.

We haven't really moved on so far, have we? Why not just get the ropes and horses out?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Stratus311]

Then those who are anti-capital punishment should foot the bill.

If a person is sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole, I'd rather have them put to death to save tax-payer money (ok, reallocate it to other areas of government) and have the victims and victim's families be able to move on that much sooner. If you are the kind of person who has no regard for human life, that should count towards your own.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[bluefoxlucid]

To be fair, I apply economics to everything, even if the currency is not money. Human life is a currency, and we want to maximize the protection of that currency.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[oodaloop]

I'm an American citizen, born and raised, living in the United States. And I never said it was OK for him to do whatever he wanted, but thanks for the strawman Dr Stupid. The death penalty provides no more disincentive than imprisonment. I'm fine if you have the opinion the death penalty is OK. Go vote that way. All I said was how I feel, not how you should feel.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[rezme]

I'd venture to say that shooting someone and burying them alive and in agony is pretty damn 18th century...

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Sciath]

There's nothing in the definition of "punishment" that excludes "killing". And the denial of continued life certainly is a form of punishment. It may be the most extreme form of punishment. But it's punishment just the same. Punishment by definition is the act of denying someone something they want or taking something they want away from them - period. Many will claim that capital punishment is never warranted because of the imperfections if the justice system. But to the extent that a particular perpetrator can clearly be identified by a combination of voluntary guilty pleas and factual evidence, then capital punishment may very well be an equitable punishment for maliciously taking someone else's life. And at the very least, for those who are clearly guilty, it saves society from the cost of housing those individuals for the rest of their natural lives. It frees up over crowded prison space and provides some sense of justice for survivors. The real injustice, at least in cases in which the guilty is clearly guilty, is the fact that survivors have to wait decades for the justice system to exhaust the appeal process.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Sciath]

The state doesn't wantonly execute people for no reason, like many murders do. There's no equitable comparison there. The state only acts in response to individual acts that demonstrate certain people are not capable of peaceful coexistence with other human beings by wantonly taking other people's lives.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Sciath]

Capital punishment certainly is a deterrent to those executed. There have been numerous cases where murders were released from prison (a decade or two later) and they killed again. The death penalty would've prevented those subsequent murders. So... it us a deterrent.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Sciath]

How about ... it's better to keep an "innocent" person in prison than to execute an innocent person? Guilty people (those who are clearly guilty, admit they are guilty and all evidence supports their guilt) deserve to forfeit their life for the life(s) they took. Otherwise there is no such thing as "justice".

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you replying to the wrong comment or are you simply beyond clueless?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a deterrent - I guarantee he won't do it again. Others, not so much a deterrent. But I contend it's more humane to do this than incarcerate for the rest of his life, and hey, you've got to keep those cells available for drug offenders :^)

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your knowledge of the law falls short. Consider the text from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Consitution of the United States:

... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

The state may indeed legally deprive a person of life, provided that due process is followed.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness means the government needs to protect me from being kidnapped, shot twice, and buried alive by executing people who have done such horrible acts.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Truth_Quark]

Clayton's story is a sad one, beginning with his mother allegedly using drugs while pregnant with him. She then abandoned him at the age of three, which devastated him and caused him to become extremely attached to his father, whom he idolized. Unfortunately, his father was a poor role model. He physically abused Clayton and forced him into using drugs at a young age. He encouraged sexually activity and frequently watched pornographic movies in front of him. Clayton's father also taught him and encouraged him to steal, punishing Clayton if he got caught. Extended family members testified that they believe Clayton was sexually abused by his older brother. Allegedly, while Clayton was incarcerated at an adult correctional facility at the age of 16, he was raped by several older men.

If you fuck someone up, you end up with a fuck-up.

Deserve to die? I don't even know how you judge such things. I do know that many who die deserve to live. We should focus our attention on that one first.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the US still even have the Death penalty?

Wait until your wife, girlfriend, or daughter is shot and then buried alive, and see if
you still wonder why.

Those who are "in principle" opposed to such things have usually never been victims of
terrible violence. Until you HAVE been a victim, you are just a noisemaker on the sidelines.
And few of us who have been victims give even the slightest fuck about the opinions of
knee-jerk types like you.

.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

there are a lot of educated people in the criminal law field who agree with me that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

The death penalty is a PERFECT deterrent against the person who is executed
committing a violent crime again.

All the rest of the debate is trivial. The death penalty removes undesirables from
society permanently. If you don't like this, go find some other society.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're clearly vengeful and bloodthirsty. So let's play in your purely hypothetical sandbox. Let's say the person brought before the court steadfastly denies being the culprit, but was caught in the same area around the same time and has no alibi and looks vaguely like the description issued over the radio.

The DA goes for the Death Penalty, and, at a cost of MILLIONS of dollars, and more than a decade of court cases, he finally wins out and the prisoner goes to death row.

The state, at that point has ALREADY spent more money on this prisoner than they would have spent, on average, incarcerating him for a half-century. So a GREATER portion of your hypothetical-victim's family-member's salary has gone into this individual than would otherwise have occurred, so, far from being relieved of this burden, it's actually been exacerbated.

Nevertheless, some number of years later, the individual heads to the execution room. He has steadfastly maintained his innocence from day one (after all, you said he was "unrepentant"). As a result of the crime he's been convicted of, he's been raped and beaten-up, sometimes badly, over the course of his incarceration, but hey, it's all in the name of "justice" right? I mean, he's ALIVE, so I'm sure he's not been adversely affected by this lifestyle he's been subjected to... Finally, they strap him to the table, put a needle in his arm, and fuck it up 3-ways from hell like in Oklahoma the other night, and he dies an awful, horrible, painful death.

At this point, you (or, rather, your hypothetical victim's family-member) is all happy, and the world is bright and the sun shines warmly again for the first time. All of the indignities and things you talked about (daughter not getting to watch TV, have breakfast, live life etc) are now all magically assuaged right? That IS the point of all this right? That the death of this individual rights all wrongs, heals all the wounds, makes everything good again for the family? That all happens the next day after the execution right? RIGHT?

Oh, but wait... a few years later another guy is picked up having committed a similar crime, but having been caught in the act, and brought to the police. During the process of his interrogation he brags about this other crime he committed ages ago and how some sucker took the rap for it. He knows details that were never made public, and it soon becomes clear that HE, in fact, committed both crimes.

It's impossible now to try him because there's already been a trial and conviction; it's REALLY impossible now to tell the first guy, WOOOPS! , WOW, ARE WE EVER SORRY!! The first guys family, having been living under the cloud of association with him and "his" crime, do, at least, get to tell everyone, "What, no, it turns out some other dude actually did it!", but how many people will really listen or care? I'm sure YOU won't.

So maybe Dude #2 manages to get the death penalty for the second crime, but realistically, given the difficulty of getting that conviction, and the cost, and, since he was caught in the act and didn't get to finish the job this time, all he actually gets is 25 years for rape, with parole eligibility in what, maybe 10-15 years? So now he's a temporary guest of the state, ALSO living every day off MORE of our first victim's family-member's paycheque, ALSO with a "get out of jail" day to look forward to!

Does THAT hypothetical fit your absurd, reductionist, world-view? Because apparently ~4% of the time, it's a distinctly possible scenario. But hey, you're okay with wasting those 4% of innocent people so's ya can kills ya some bad mofos right? But sure, you're "healthy", and definitely NOT sociopathic right? And vengeance, and bloodthirstiness aren't traits that you exhibit right? After all, THIS is a "just" solution according to you...

I know, you're going to come back and tell us about how much of a waste all those trials are and that it shouldn't be so difficult to off the sick bastards... ignoring that a LESS rigorous system would kill MORE innoce

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[wijnands]

It seems to go with the territory of being a right wing quasi democracy. It usually takes a true democracy and a certain level of education of the voting population to get rid of the death penalty. Most of Europe reached that stage in the 1930s-1970s.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[cavebison]

However strange it may feel to refer to Tolkien on this issue, this particular quote has something unusually profound and humane to it.

Agreed, however he didn't mean don't kill - he just suggested taking a moment first. Maybe a cup of tea and a quiet sit down somewhere nice, and smile when someone walks by, it's good for the soul.

"Crucifixion? Very good; one cross each, line on the left."

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[kernel_user]

Then an industrial shredder should do the job just fine. Would it be considered a cruel and unusual punishment ?

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[SuricouRaven]

See the 'visibly bloody' comment. Though you're right: If the condemned were fed in head-first, they'd be incapable of feeling pain in about a third of a second. So it's not quite painless, but certainly quick.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[L. J. Beauregard]

Why does the US still even have the Death penalty?

"Mah opponent is SOFT ON CRAHME!"

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[DrStoooopid]

Who said anything about disincentive. It's called "justice" for a reason.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[oodaloop]

Well, at least you live up to your name.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[DrStoooopid]

At least I don't marginalize an opposing viewpoint because I don't have a defensible argument.

The justice system isn't about deterrence, it's about applying an appropriate punishment when the law is broken. If you hinder or remove another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in this case murder...your rights to the same are forfeit, and the punishment was appropriate.

(and frankly, you can go f*ck yourself, your over inflated sense of self-importance, and your holier than thou attitude. DrStoooopid is a reference to something is simply above your level of thinking, and it's impossible for you to get the joke, so I won't bother explaining it to you.)

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should punishment mean that people have a chance to grow? A punishment is a punishment.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[AK Marc]

And if he had been honest at his trial, he would have been found innocent then. But he lied, and the jury could tell he was lying. So the prosecution's case made sense, and the jury convicted him.

There was nothing in the Wiki page about "lies" on the stand. And how could the prosecution's case have made sense when a re-examination of the evidence found the fire was "not arson" and a regular house fire.

So, yes Texas most likely killed a man who didn't willingly kill his family. But he isn't the poster child of wrongful conviction you may think he is.

So he was an innocent man who deserved to die because he lied? I'm not sure perjury is a capital offense.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[AK Marc]

I beleive that having the highest incarceration rate is evidence we are not doing a good job of it.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one of the best answers I've ever seen to the death penalty objectors. Very well done!

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[DrStoooopid]

Tell that to their victim.

They did it, they BRAGGED about doing it, and it's plenty easy for you to make these comments when you don't live here, Jack. ...and while I agree, if someone was wrongfully accused, it's a miscarriage of justice, but there was nothing "wrongful" about this case. They raped her for 6 hours, shot her in the head, and she was still alive while they dug a grave for her and buried her alive.

You should probably just shut your c0ckholster now, because you really don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Anonymous Coward]

What was botched? The scumbag murderer of children is dead. Nicely done, OK.

Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat.

[Jerome from Layton]

But, it does guarantee that he won't do it again. Three Strikes, Mandatory Minimums, Megan's Law, and the proliferation of Concealed Carry laws resulted from some truly egregious crimes by repeat offenders back in the Seventies and Eighties. Those crimes also caused a lot of states to keep their housekeeping laws in effect. Housekeeping as in "take out the trash".

crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

Clayton Locket shot a man multiple times and then buried him alive. That same night he committed 18 other violent crimes including rape, burglary and assault.. http://www.ca10.uscourts.GOV/opinions/11/11-6040.pdf

I'm pretty sure no matter how he died, it was more humane than the murder and rape he committed.

Re:crimes

[TheBlueCrab]

Sure, the crime was absolutely horrific, but how does that give the state the right to violate his constitutional and legal rights and torture him to death with an untested method of execution? Obviously Oklahoma realized that what they did wouldn't pass muster, or they'd have gone ahead with the second execution on the schedule for the day.

Re:crimes

[TheRaven64]

Well, that's okay then. As long as you only violate due process when the mob thinks the guy really, really deserves it then there's no problem.

Re:crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read it? He was given due process.

Re:crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure no matter how he died, it was more humane than the murder and rape he committed.

And I'm pretty sure that no matter how inhumane his own actions were, the Eighth Amendment still applies to the method by which he is executed. Leaving him writhing on a table for 20 minutes would seem to fall outside the bounds.

It's simple, either do it right or don't fucking do it at all.

Re:crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why they don't just use bolt guns like they do with animals.

Re:crimes

[bluefoxlucid]

Your Constitutional Rights have freed you from morality.

Oklahoma didn't realize anything wouldn't pass muster. They were shocked and horrified by a gruesome sight. They are afraid to face the reality of what they do; lethal injection is a long, slow, terrifying process which appears peaceful to the observer so that he may absolve himself of the commission of murder.

An execution should be quick and gruesome. It should be visible death, not peaceful rest. A hanging, a beheading, shooting, a beating to death. A thing that shows us what we do so that we may face it and understand it is terrible but it is just. The more zeal a people have for a punishment, the more visible and terrible it should be so that the people are shocked and sickened back into the understanding of what it is they do.

Re:crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

Because whiny Republicans who hate that their limp wristed impotent god can't smite wrongdoers fast enough to please them feel like they have to do his job for him. They probably got off on his torture, too, just like how they fapped to the videos coming out of Abu Ghraib.

Re:crimes

[gweihir]

It may have been, but it makes those that executed him murderers. Committing more immoral acts does not fix other immoral acts having been committed before. It makes the situation worse.

Re:crimes

[MillerHighLife21]

Wasn't this only caused because the standard drugs used for lethal injection were withheld by a European company?

Re:crimes

[i kan reed]

On the other hand "showing those people how wrong they are" isn't a valid justification for the pragmatic result of more suffering.

Re:crimes

[bluefoxlucid]

I care more about suffering as a matter of totality and spread than a matter of the individual. Boundaries balanced with count of affected.

For example: UBI will increase suffering by taxing people and harming the economy, over the alternative of no welfare system (my proposed UBI system requires a lower tax than our current welfare system, so it's not a real trade-off on the large scale); but it also ensures that nobody will be homeless and nobody will be hungry, even though the poor and unemployed will fall into a situation of terrible housing and food and a hellish life. (It also provides for easier upward mobility by eliminating the welfare trap...)

On the other hand, I prefer a partial public healthcare system to a full one. Supplying clinical services for free has a small economic impact (infliction of general suffering), but a huge economic gain (alleviation of general suffering). Improvement of the general baseline health affects the poor greatly. Failing to supply a public health system for cancer and HIV maintenance--expensive services--results in a few people suffering greatly; however, attempting to supply a complete system bears a huge weight on all, pushing more into these situations of managed suffering, and significantly harming everyone else.

UBI: Less suffering. Inflated welfare system as ours: More suffering. Full clinical healthcare: Less suffering. Full healthcare: More suffering. It's more complex than a cherrypick.

In the same way, making people face death makes them more sensitive to death. We've comforted ourselves by making death appear peaceful with a slow, terrifying numbness that cannot be expressed by a dying man. The sickening crack of a man's neck or the image of his head being severed from his body would remind us of the fatally destructive thing we do. Perhaps we would then be less sensitive to the idea of execution seeming uncivilized and more sensitive to the idea of execution occupying a place in society which we find disturbing, a place where we send a man only on the strictest confidence that it is just, and regret doing so even before we enact the decision.

Look at the discussions on execution. People want to lock someone up "because he might be innocent", and talk as if they could throw a man in jail for 20 years and it's okay because if they're wrong they just let him out. Imagine ... between 25 and 35 you're in jail. Imagine the social disconnect, the trauma. If you have a family, it's been destroyed; if you have kids, you miss seeing them grow up. If you have no family, you've missed the prime time of your life to secure a mate and raise one. Your career has been destroyed. Your finances are destroyed. Your friends have moved on.

Just as people do not acknowledge execution correctly, so do they fail to acknowledge incarceration correctly.

Re:crimes

[RobinH]

The withholding of the drugs didn't "cause" the execution. If I was going to shoot you, and someone took away my gun, so I stabbed you instead, does that mean the person who took away my gun caused you to be stabbed?

Re:crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

The more zeal a people have for a punishment, the more visible and terrible it should be so that the people are shocked and sickened back into the understanding of what it is they do.

In some parts of the world (for example) the public not only get a good view of brutal deaths by throwing rocks at someone, but are invited to join in. Doesn't seem to have the effect you described.

Re:crimes

[TheBlueCrab]

Your Constitutional Rights have freed you from morality.

Freed me from morality? How is killing someone EVER the moral thing to do? I don't care what the convicted person did -- killing someone is never the moral thing to do. As many other people have already said, two wrongs don't make a right. "An eye for an eye" is a rather barbaric way of exacting justice. Perhaps I misunderstand what you're getting at here, but I don't see how my constitutional rights free me from morality here at all.

Oklahoma didn't realize anything wouldn't pass muster. They were shocked and horrified by a gruesome sight.

After reading a few other articles on this subject, I don't even think they were shocked and horrified. They've only stayed the other execution for two weeks. Does anyone really think they can conduct a full investigation into what happened here in two weeks?

Re:crimes

[MillerHighLife21]

True, but prior to the withholding we had tested and more humane ways to perform lethal injections. After the company withheld the tested method they forced an exploration of alternative options.

Re:crimes

[bluefoxlucid]

In two weeks, they can decide if they need to stay execution longer.

People like to absolve themselves for what they do not do. How is putting a man in jail for 20 years not killing him? When he comes out, he is a ruined man. He may be a hardened criminal, and may then commit violent crimes again--not because it's his nature, but because he has had 20 years in prison to be forged into a man who has much lower inhibitions for murder. Now his crimes are on your head, and the blood of the innocents who die are on your hands.

Punishment as a deterrent is a complex topic. In cases where executions are not deterrent, we inevitably execute 1 innocent man for 0 innocent lives saved, a ratio of 1/0 or infinite failure. In cases where executions are deterrent, we have a 1/X ratio; if X is positive, we are successfully saving lives overall. We want two things: the fewest innocent people executed per guilty executed (a fraction, i.e. 1 per 99 or 1/99), and the most innocent lives saved by deterrent (also a ratio, i.e. 1 innocent lost per 10 saved or 1/10).

Even if we execute 1 innocent per 10,000 murderers, if we save no innocents by deterrent then we are failing. If we execute 1 innocent per 1 murderer, but save 10 innocents by deterrent for every 1 executed, there will be 10 times as much blood on our hands if we stop; this system is as acceptable as the former and, be it 1/1 or 1/10000, we should strive to reduce the number of innocents lost by incorrect judgment. Although we should target our efforts at the worst ones, we can never consider a system where one innocent is lost as more acceptable; it simply has less need.

I don't see how my constitutional rights free me from morality here at all.

"Cruel and unusual punishment" is interpreted by the observer.

We should bring back medieval punishment. We should quarter people we execute: tie a rope to their head and body, ensure the head severs first--and have a bolt smash the back of the skull besides--such that the transition to death is not noticed. We should flog and cane people for minor offenses. We should do so publicly, on occasion, but on so little occasion so as to not desensitize the crowd to it.

A brutal, gruesome execution may be swift and painless yet incredibly upsetting to the observer. This is good. The observer should hold the resolve that what is done need doing. He should face the consequences of what need doing, so that his senses sicken him and so that he will have no eagerness to have such a thing done. A peaceful execution does not disturb the observer, and he readily accepts the causality of trail and execution; a brutal, disturbing execution forces the observer to grasp for justice, to demand that execution follow *crime*, to question the competence of trial and demand certainty about that which we do.

We have likewise grown too accustomed to the ideal imprisonment, a peaceful alternative to medieval torture. We have forgotten the true nature of torture, the crushing psychological force of long, unending terror for the coming, unending pain. Floggings are swift; the agony does not go on for hours or days on end, although the pain lingers. Prison destroys a man; a petty thief does not deserve weeks or months rotting while his finances dwindle, while his relationships fall apart, while his home is reclaimed by his landlord for lack of payment. Doubtless we wrongly absolve ourselves of this ideal of murder by placing an innocent man in prison, claiming that we can release him in ten or fifteen years if he proves innocent; doubtless we release nothing more than a walking corpse.

We have become a despicable people who claim ourselves civilized because we have painted over all of the offensive things we do in bright pastels.

Re:crimes

[ComputersKai]

It should be visible death, not peaceful rest. A hanging, a beheading, shooting, a beating to death. A thing that shows us what we do so that we may face it and understand it is terrible but it is just. The more zeal a people have for a punishment, the more visible and terrible it should be so that the people are shocked and sickened back into the understanding of what it is they do.

And, how, my zealous sir, how is that morality?

Or why don't we use that ancient Chinese execution technique, lingchi? Slow slicing and torture of the condemned. I'm sure that will make everyone feel better about their society.
Because we don't. More public killings would just soften up the onlookers to the concept of murder. Just like in the Middle Ages, executions would become entertainment, and if you think violent video games turn teens into murderers, think about how it will be like when they see it in real life, publicized by a crowd of overzealous, vengeance-obsessed justice fanatics.

Re:crimes

[bluefoxlucid]

As opposed to assuring the people that death is peaceful, that we inflict no pain, that the process is perfectly clean and happy and utiopian?

These outcries come when we see someone die of shock. The last one was a concoction of drugs that most likely put the prisoner out of his senses immediately, but caused writhing of the body and foaming at the mouth; it upset the observers greatly. They deserve that. We deserve that. We deserve to see it; when we kill a man, we should not be absolved of the fact of death.

Re:crimes

[ComputersKai]

Well, people can't tell if it was painful, because no one bothers to try it out themselves before administering it. It could have been excruciating for the prisoner, but the executioners can't know for sure that easily.

Re:crimes

[bluefoxlucid]

It doesn't matter if it's painful or terrifying or cruel or torturous. As long as we perceive it as peaceful and humane, we accept that state execution is a beautiful thing that shows our benevolence as a civilized society.

The converse is better: it can be quick and painless, but it should horrify us.

it wasn't botched

[Anonymous Coward]

it was an execution. he died. pop the cork, it's a winner in my book.

Re:it wasn't botched

[MightyMartian]

It was an execution that almost certainly violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Re:it wasn't botched

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a strange person that celebrates any death. Presumably though, it's this mentality that allows the death penalty to continue in the US.

Re:it wasn't botched

[Old Fatty Baldman]

I don't think so. His painful death was an accident, just as much as if he'd slipped on a banana peel and brained himself on the way to the execution chamber.

Re:it wasn't botched

[Anonymous Coward]

Have your daughter raped, shot and buried alive.

See if that changes you.

Re:it wasn't botched

[bobbied]

It was an execution that almost certainly violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The INTENT of the execution was NOT to cause him pain. The intent was to put him to sleep, then when he was unconscious, cause his death by medication. No pain is caused when this process works as designed. Had the IV not malfunctioned, or had they caught the fact that it had before they started the lethal part of the medication delivery, there would have been no pain caused.

The PROBLEM was that the IV they where using to deliver the medications blew out the vein and stopped working sometime after the sleeping medication was started. This only became apparent AFTER the medications used to cause his death had been delivered. This was an unfortunate accident.

This will and should cause a care examination of the process being used. They will make adjustments to avoid this problem in the future. But one thing is CLEAR, this was not because they where using some untested mix of medications or the wrong dosages. I'm guessing that from now on they will start two IV's and then be ready to keep the subject unconscious though either, while the lethal medications are administered.

Untested?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems they've tested it now.

Re:Untested?

[DeathToBill]

I wondered about this. If being untested is a problem for methods of execution, how exactly are you ever going to have a usable method of execution?

I'm sure those opposed to the death penalty like it this way; methods of execution are not usable until they've been tested and they can't be tested because they're unconstitutional. Ergo, we can't execute anyone. But the same legalistic argument presented many times above applies to them, too; the constitution does not forbid capital punishment, only cruel and unusual punishment. If you want to get rid of capital punishment, you need to change the constitution, not try to game the legal system to get what you want without the due process of changing the constitution.

Re:Untested?

[Zironic]

There's plenty of tested ways of execution. Decapitation, gassing, hanging, firing squad, the previous lethal cocktail etc.

Re:Untested?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Funny

Re:Untested?

[SJHillman]

There's an easy way out of that conundrum. Just continue to use methods like hanging, firing squads and drowning. They're all well tested and documented methods in which the results can be pretty well assured. Sure, they seem a little more barbaric, but they're tested.

Re:Untested?

[Sowelu]

Nope, not the previous lethal cocktail anymore. We mostly get those chemicals from other countries--and other countries decided to ban selling them to us, because we use them in executions. It's been bad for our medical field, because they have a lot of potential for curing as well.

Re:Untested?

[Nidi62]

There's an easy way out of that conundrum. Just continue to use methods like hanging, firing squads and drowning. They're all well tested and documented methods in which the results can be pretty well assured. Sure, they seem a little more barbaric, but they're tested.

That's what I say. Build a chair that you strap the person down in, with a firing chamber and short barrel pointed at their head or heart. Have a remote trigger fired by pushing a button, or have the button start a mechanical timer (either random or a set time). You can even give the convicted person their own button to push if they prefer. It's a lot less painful, and the quickest method short of decapitation or hanging (if you get it right and break the neck).

Re:Untested?

[Rich0]

Yup, this is basically the whole "intelligent design" thing in a different form.

People want to teach the biblical creation account in school, but got shot down by every court in the nation 50 years ago (go figure). So, they have to carefully construct the argument so as to try to present it as something new so that courts have an excuse to look the other way.

If an inmate challenged an execution on the grounds that the state has no authority to perform an execution, they'd be shot down. So, instead arguments are made about the process, but those advancing these arguments would not be satisfied with any process - they are opposed to execution in any form.

The only reason states are changing the methodology is because protesters have been fairly effective in curtailing supplies of the materials used previously. Now states are moving towards undisclosed methods with undisclosed suppliers so that it is hard for protesters to target them. They're also generally using materials that are important for healthcare in general so that it is not possible to disrupt their supply. It is a big cat and mouse game. There won't be any kind of standardization of the process since a stable process can potentially be disrupted. So, expect more events like this one until somebody decides to go back to firing squads and hanging.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty myself, but the whole argument around untested methods is just a smoke screen. The whole system of punishment needs a complete overhaul. The death penalty isn't just inhumane, it is based on a flawed premise. How the inmates get executed is fairly unimportant in the big scheme of things - it is like debating whether you'd rather get run over by a car going 35mph or 75mph.

Re:Untested?

[lagomorpha2]

Same way you test any new drug. Undergrads.

Re:Untested?

[tpstigers]

Wish I had some mod points.

Re:Untested?

[Anonymous Coward]

a .50 BMG round to the head should suffice for a quick and sure kill, and the criminal won't have time to feel pain.

Of course death penalty should only be for those cases of absolutly sure guilt, but theres still plenty of those cases around

Re:Untested?

[Guest316]

Animals, most likely.

Re:Untested?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine, let's scratch drugs off the list. (It was a dumb idea, anyway.) We still have decapitation, hanging, and firing squad.

Decapitation, in particular, is very reliable. The French totally perfected this over 200 years ago.

I just googled for botched guillotine executions and the only solid thing I came up with -- and I am not making this up -- is that the Nazis (!?!) screwed one up. Once. And even that was pretty much instantly-lethal, but nevertheless a technical fuckup.

The Nazis. I think that's a low bar to try to jump over.

Once. Even they could clear it, but someone probably got drunk that one time.

This is about as close to a perfect track record, as you can get.

(Aside: TIL the Nazis used guillotines. I had no idea.)

Re:Untested?

[unixisc]

Fine, just give them cyanide. Don't tell me that it needs to be imported from Belgium

Re:Untested?

[unixisc]

Or even bring back the guillotine. We can start from the last used design, and then do upgrades.

Re:Untested?

[wagnerrp]

Nope, not the previous lethal cocktail anymore. We mostly get those chemicals from other countries--and other countries decided to ban selling them to us, because we use them in executions.

I've heard this before, but I just don't understand it. Doing so would present a void in the market, and voids get filled by new companies springing up to fulfill the supply. If there's a reason for anyone to be using it, surely there would be enough usage in a country of ~350M people to warrant the capital expenditure of a chemical plant.

Re:Untested?

[Anonymous Coward]

Executions should be barbaric. Trying to get a nice way for the bad man to go silent and die peacefully is great if he was your pet dog, but it reduces the impact of the event that the state just took a man's life. No matter how evil a man's actions, the act of taking his life should be extremely difficult to want to do.

Re:Untested?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course death penalty should only be for those cases of absolutly sure guilt, but theres still plenty of those cases around

It would be terrible logic to base sentences on how good the evidence is. A brutal murder is not less serious if the perpetrator takes care not to leave DNA behind. There is no such thing as "guilty enough to get X years but not quite as guilty to get more".

Re:Untested?

[SJHillman]

The French used the guillotine right up until 1977 (their death penalty was abolished in 1981 anyway), so it may not need to much updating. As late as 1996, a US Rep from Georgia tried to get the electric chair replaced with the guillotine (but was not successful).

Re:Untested?

[Zironic]

They're only forbidden to supply the drug to correctional facilities, since that market is utterly tiny theres absolutely no profit to be had in catering to it.

Re:Untested?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nazis. I think that's a low bar to try to jump over.

I'm not so sure it is a low bar to clear. The Nazis were experts in execution given how much practice they got.

Re:Untested?

[msi]

So, expect more events like this one until somebody decides to go back to firing squads and hanging.

The states will not go back to shooting or hanging because they can't get people to shoot or hang people. The move to lethal injection happened because it is easier on the executioner.

Re:Untested?

[strikethree]

Unless the purpose is to torture them, heroin or nitrogen work VERY well. Why not use one of those to kill people?

Oh right, it has to hurt. May as well use the guillotine.

Re:Untested?

[jwhitener]

The only reason states are changing the methodology is because protesters have been fairly effective in curtailing supplies of the materials used previously.

I was under the impression that the lack of drugs used for the death penalty, was mainly the result of a decision by the Italian government to not allow a US company to produce their drugs in Italy and subsequently a decision by a Dutch company to not sell its drug recipe/patent to a US company.

Were those decisions lobbied by US protestors? Your sentence makes it sound like they were, but this would be first I'm hearing about it.

Re:Untested?

[Rich0]

The only reason states are changing the methodology is because protesters have been fairly effective in curtailing supplies of the materials used previously.

I was under the impression that the lack of drugs used for the death penalty, was mainly the result of a decision by the Italian government to not allow a US company to produce their drugs in Italy and subsequently a decision by a Dutch company to not sell its drug recipe/patent to a US company.

Were those decisions lobbied by US protestors? Your sentence makes it sound like they were, but this would be first I'm hearing about it.

Well, in this case the protesters include a number of foreign governments as well. The Italians and Dutch haven't been filing lawsuits to find out who is supplying the drugs used in the new cocktails - those are US-based efforts. If the court had ordered the disclosure of the manufacturer, then I'm sure foreign governments would have put pressure on that manufacturer.

Re:Untested?

[Anonymous Coward]

I shouldn't think the guillotine hurts much as long as the blade is kept sharp. The problem with that is that it is too bloody messy, but if you think killing someone is an appropriate punishment you should face up to what you are actually endorsing.

news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots more political posts of late, generally of a liberal slant. Whatever, but is the quality of the political discussion/diatribes that follow why folks read slashdot rather than move on or national review online or such.

Stuff that matters? Maybe. News for nerds? Not so much.

Re:news for nerds?

[addie]

The news has a whole lot to do with the method of execution and the combination of drugs they gave him. There's a lot of science there.

Whether or not we decide to discuss that is up to us.

Re:news for nerds?

[DeathToBill]

Yes, that's right, the science is the story here. /sarc

Re:news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

The news has a whole lot to do with the method of execution and the combination of drugs they gave him. There's a lot of science there.

Whether or not we decide to discuss that is up to us.

This is about the pharmacology and physiology. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket...

Red meat, nothing more.

What's the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

bring back the firing squad. It is apparently neither cruel or unusual. Our police use bullets all the time for minor matters.

Re:What's the problem

[SJHillman]

If I ever have to be executed, I want them to do it with a goddamn tank cannon.

Re:What's the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry SJHillman, but in your case for the egregious act of wearing bell bottoms in the 21st century we're going to execute you with Justin Bieber music.

Re:What's the problem

[NatasRevol]

Dammit, I want a nuclear bomb!

Re:What's the problem

[PPH]

Snu snu.

Re:What's the problem

[qwijibo]

I've always wondered if heroin overdose would be a good option. For those who don't want to live in prison the rest of their lives, that seems like an option some would take voluntarily.

Untested lethal injection drugs...

[MoreThanThen]

can now be labeled 'tested'.
The test can either be graded as a success/fail according to your ethics.

Re:Untested lethal injection drugs...

[bobbied]

can now be labeled 'tested'. The test can either be graded as a success/fail according to your ethics.

EPIC FAILURE, but it wasn't really a failure of the drug mix. What we had was a failure of the delivery system and the process to deal with such failures. They won't make the same mistake again.

Besides, it's not as if this drug mix hasn't been used successfully before. It has. We know the mix works just fine, you just have to get it into the subject...

Nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it hard to believe that no one has looked into execution using Nitrogen. Something akin to an old style dive helmet with a hose near the top to feed in gas. When the time comes, switch the flow over from air to pure nitrogen. Simple, cheap, painless and there is a limitless supply of Nitrogen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation

Re:Nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

They did look into Death-by-Nitrogen, but it's far too likely to be painless and sometimes slightly pleasant, and the raving revenge rightwingers wouldn't have it.

Let's bring back crucifiction !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI

Re:Nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing. I first read that as:

Something akin to an old style dive helmet with a horse near the top to feed in gas

Re:Nitrogen?

[coinreturn]

Funny thing. I first read that as:

Something akin to an old style dive helmet with a horse near the top to feed in gas

That's death by methane.

Re:Nitrogen?

[PhilHibbs]

Crucifiction's a doddle.

Re:Nitrogen?

[kyrsjo]

I'm against death penalty, but I also never understood why the states still doing it make it so convuluted. I thought the "raving revenge rightwingers" you're talking of are quite aware of the invention of firearms, why not use that? As far as I understand, it should even be pretty humane to the prisoner...

Re:Nitrogen?

[Nimey]

Several of the states have old decommissioned gas chambers that were previously used for executions. I doubt it'd take much to get them airtight again; you'd just need new seals and a couple pumps: one to pull out atmospheric gas and another to pump in nitrogen, until you get a mostly-pure nitrogen atmo at STP.

Re:Nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good chance I'm talking out of my ass but what is the procedure for getting a new method of execution approved? I'm highly confident that people who want to get ride of executions wouldn't allow this method to be approved, because it solves these problems.

Re:Nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

They did look into Death-by-Nitrogen, but it's far too likely to be painless and sometimes slightly pleasant, and the raving revenge rightwingers wouldn't have it.

FIne. Scratch nitrogen. We could use helium to make his last words sound embarassingly hilarious, or SF6 to make him sound like an embarassingly cheezy supervillain.

Re:Nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

like an exit bag? The US refuses to do this on the ground that there isn't enough suffering involved.

Re:Nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it hard to believe that no one has looked into execution using Nitrogen. Something akin to an old style dive helmet with a hose near the top to feed in gas. When the time comes, switch the flow over from air to pure nitrogen. Simple, cheap, painless and there is a limitless supply of Nitrogen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation

That's a valid point and we already know how to execute people in a gas chamber. What you are missing though is that the death penalty is gruesome by design. The simple truth is that most people don't actually fear death. What we fear is the pain of dying or, more specifically, how we are going to die. (Superstitious ignoramuses may fear an unpleasant judgement and penalty from the magic sky wizard but that is another argument.) This is especially true when faced with a prospect of life imprisonment, which is, in every way but a heartbeat, a form of death. With nothing to live for but pain and torment in prison the only thing left to fear is a painful death.

It's the powers that be saying to us "this could happen to you." The only thing we have in the US limiting execution methods is that they may not be "cruel or unusual." That is a fairly meaningless and completely subjective phrase which doesn't exclude anything at all but the practice of executing each prisoner in a different way . Retributive justice is entirely cruel. And if an execution method is generally agreed upon, whether it is widely adopted or not, it is not unusual. There is nothing but cost and complexity preventing us from feeding prisoners to crocodiles.

Simply put, we don't execute people in nitrogen gas chambers because that just isn't terrifying enough.

Re:Nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it hard to believe that no one has looked into execution using Nitrogen. Something akin to an old style dive helmet with a hose near the top to feed in gas. When the time comes, switch the flow over from air to pure nitrogen. Simple, cheap, painless and there is a limitless supply of Nitrogen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation

I too have advocated the use of Nitrogen gas.

Re:Nitrogen?

[stoploss]

I'm fairly certain repurposing the chamber would be nothing more than execution theater. A nitrogen tank and a simple hospital mask for the condemned are all that's required. That's the point: the gas is inert.

Re:Nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not painful enough.

Re:Nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely dead on, AC. Any society that still uses the death penalty should do this, as it is swift, certain, and painless.

The problem, I hear, is that there is a moment of euphoria before death, and DP proponents cannot countenance giving the convict any good feelings whatsoever.

Re:Nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Carbon monoxide, anyone?

-- Steve Wozniak

Re:Nitrogen?

[evilviper]

I'm fairly certain repurposing the chamber would be nothing more than execution theater. A nitrogen tank and a simple hospital mask for the condemned are all that's required. That's the point: the gas is inert.

You REALLY haven't thought this through... there's a million and one things that have to be considered and designed-in to prevent accidents and ensure everything goes right.

You need a big room with lots of air flow, sensors/alarms, just to ensure the safety of the personnel, should something spring a leak, or rupture. You need impressive and strong restraints holding the convict, since they're going to be big powerful men, struggling for their lives before, during, and shortly after.

Your "hospital mask" needs to be something that absolutely, positively can't be removed, disconnected, disabled, rendered partially functional, etc., by the thrashing and struggling convict.

Worst case scenario would be that the condemned gets asphyxiated for several minutes, long enough to cause severe brain damage, but then a convulsion breaks the seal and allows air to leak-in, releasing all the gas with the man's heart and vital organs still working. Lots of effort needs to go into ensuring that can't ever possibly happen, and a half-assed improvised setup isn't ever going to be up to the task.

Considering all the many ways it could go wrong, I wouldn't go with anything less than a gas chamber for performing such a task. Those who have them would need them tested out and repaired after decades of retirement. Those who don't would need to have them built.

Re:Nitrogen?

[LookIntoTheFuture]

I find it hard to believe that no one has looked into execution using Nitrogen. Something akin to an old style dive helmet with a hose near the top to feed in gas. When the time comes, switch the flow over from air to pure nitrogen. Simple, cheap, painless and there is a limitless supply of Nitrogen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation

This seems like a no-brainer. The only thing I can think of is that it isn't profitable enough to use nitrogen. The drug companies' thugs will come around and break your kneecaps for even thinking about nitrogen.

Re:Nitrogen?

[chihowa]

From the Wikipedia page:

Some individuals experience headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, or euphoria, but some become unconscious without warning.

The vengeance seeking crowd seem to have a little too much say in state executions and the possibility that their victim might not suffer, or worse might feel pleasure, turns them off of many of the more humane methods.

Re:Nitrogen?

[stoploss]

You REALLY haven't thought this through... there's a million and one things that have to be considered and designed-in to prevent accidents and ensure everything goes right. You need a big room with lots of air flow, sensors/alarms, just to ensure the safety of the personnel, should something spring a leak, or rupture.

Tsk, tsk. Didn't run the math, did you? Let's run some back of the envelope calculations.

You can achieve brain death by hypoxia in 7 minutes. Let's say we go for 14. Let's say the inmate's vital capacity is 5L and he is somehow managing to have a respiratory rate of 32 for the whole time (yes, I know, impossible once he's lost consciousness, but we're giving you the benefit of the doubt here). Okay, so that's 2200 L. What's the size of the death chamber? 6m by 6x by 3m? Okay, that's 108,000 liters. Now, don't forget that the room air is 78% nitrogen already. Let's say we had catastrophic failure and the entire 2200 L tank leaked into the room. Well, now the room is filled with 86,440 L of N2 rather than 84,240 L.

Don't forget that nitrogen is an *inert* gas. Unlike, say, carbon monoxide, nitrogen causes problems when there is insufficient oxygen rather than when there is excess N2. All right, so now the room is 80% nitrogen instead of 78%. There's still plenty of oxygen for anyone who wanders around here.

Sure, put a fan in the room and ensure it's ventilated. You really don't need to go into your histrionics about the "safety of the personnel" unless they are stockpiling a decade's worth of nitrogen right there in the room. Even then the risk of the pressure vessels themselves being hazardous is likely greater than the nitrogen within.

Protip: you need approximately 200 mL of O2 per minute during normal activity. Your normal tidal volume of unlabored breathing at 12 breaths/min in 20% O2 atmosphere gives you 1200 mL of O2. In other words, room air has about 6x the O2 concentration you need.

But, like I said, you could use the gas chamber for execution theater. Otherwise, strap the fucker down to the erstwhile lethal injection gurney (including his head), put the mask over his face, and say goodbye. He'll lose consciousness in under a minute due to the hyperventilation anyway, because he will blow out his alveolar reserve O2 that much faster (replacing it with pure N2).

Protip 2: you don't actually need a seal for the mask, you just need to run the damn mask at slightly higher than ambient pressure. You can monitor his blood oxygen saturation via a dirt cheap pulse oximeter and watch that go down to 0. The devices even let you know if they are getting an accurate reading or not. Hell, I own two myself. That technology is a commodity now.

...then you wait until a few minutes until he's good & dead (determining whether he is dead is also a solved problem).

Re:Nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another funny thing, I read your comment and thought "Why the fuck do you think anyone cares?"

As you might expect, I rapidly concluded that you are a retard.

Re:Nitrogen?

[Graydyn Young]

The reason this method of execution hasn't caught on is that some people are uncomfortable with the accused going out in a blissful state. They can't be "cruel and unusual", but they at least want the experience to be unpleasant. This could be taken as evidence that the death penalty is purely a form of revenge.

Re:Nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

This was already suggested a few times. Afair remember, the people in power/deciding how an execution is done said something along the lines of "Death Row inmates don't have the right to a swift execution" or something like that. It's not like the opposite of the 8th amendment but it leaves me wondering.
You have the right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment, but not the right to uncruel punishment, implying, they will try with very limited effort to execute you quickly, but if it fails .. shit happens.
Captcha: Respects :D.

Re:Nitrogen?

[Jerome from Layton]

Nitrogen is slow asphyxiation and that could be a problem. Carbon dioxide has a rapid onset at concentrations over 10% with the first symptom being a "blackout" because the retina is the first thing to shut down (personal experience from reaching into an ice chest for an ice cream cone ) followed by other things shutting down (the brain and CNS, then the rest of the body). CO2 stimulates respiration which makes it work even faster. The drawback, if it matters, is the decedent looking like a smurf.

State government sponsored killing

[Machupo]

I am amazed at the cavalier attitude with which many people accept the right of their state government to kill its citizens, and furthermore, am chagrined when something "goes wrong" and people are outraged.

Re:State government sponsored killing

[acidradio]

You're right. It's time to bring back mob justice. Quick, cheap and easy.

Re:State government sponsored killing

[Anonymous Coward]

I am amazed at the cavalier attitude with which many people accept the right of their state government to lock up its citizens...

Re:State government sponsored killing

[bluefoxlucid]

People do not want to face what they do. They want an execution to appear peaceful so that they can say justice was served, but so that they do not have to concern themselves with what that justice is.

Sometimes, a man deserves to die. This is unfortunate; people do not wish to feel this, instead opting to feel just. A good hanging, or injection with a burning poison to a slow, screaming, retching death, this makes the people recoil in disgust. It is good to look upon the horror of what you have done, understand why it needed to be done, and regret that it had to be.

Re:State government sponsored killing

[gweihir]

Many people are primitives at heart and barely qualify as humans. They are animals beneath a thin disguise of being civilized. And in discussions like these it shows.

Re:State government sponsored killing

[qwijibo]

Capital punishment is a way for society to collectively say "we will no longer be needing your services."

In this case, the replacement for the previous drugs (which are less available to the US due to their use in the death penalty) turned out not to work as expected. Considering the severity of the crimes committed, there's not many people with empathy for the criminal. However, the state did the right thing by acknowledging the failure of the method and not proceeding with another inmate that was already scheduled.

Hanging

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why hanging isn't used anymore. No chemicals to go wrong. No blown veins. Just drop them until dead. Boom. Done.

Re:Hanging

[SJHillman]

For a very long time, hanging was exceptionally torturous because you essentially just waited for them to asphyxiate. It's a relatively recent advance in hanging methods to drop them from a height so the rope snaps their neck, making it quick and painless... if all goes as planned.

Re:Hanging

[Guest316]

I can't imagine even a long drop hanging being painless. Think how it'd feel to have your shoulder knocked out of alignment, then imagine that sensation in your neck instead. Consider that the brain can survive for about ten minutes without oxygen, even if unconsciousness would come somewhat sooner. Breaking the neck simply cuts off the brain from the rest of the body and halts its movement--it doesn't instantly kill everything from the noose up.

I'm not interested in joining the death penalty debate, simply putting forth the notion that motionless does not equate painless.

Re:Hanging

[Streetlight]

From what I've read/heard, the long drop hanging may snap the neck, but does not kill those hanged. It may snap the neck rendering the hanged a paraplegic, but death occurs due to strangulation. It's not known if the hanged is conscious. In an interview with Johnny Carson, Truman Capote who witnessed the hanging of the In Cold Blood murderers it took at least 20 minutes for death to occur. Again, no one knows how long it took for strangulation to cause unconsciousness under these circumstances. Sometimes hanging goes wrong. The execution of the main characters in the Nuremberg Nazis, the hangman was incompetent and some were decapitated and the next up for the rope had to clean up the mess before they were hanged.

Failed injection.

[jamesl]

According to Robert Patton, the director of Oklahoma's department of corrections, when doctors felt that the drugs were not having the required effect on Lockett, they discovered that a vein had ruptured.
This is not a problem related to the drug(s) used but incompetent administration.

This in spite of myriad objections that the drugs being used for both lethal injections had not been tested ...
How does one test lethal injections?

Re:Failed injection.

[hey!]

How does one test lethal injections?

Human experimentation.

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

This in spite of myriad objections that the drugs being used for both lethal injections had not been tested ...
How does one test lethal injections?

They just had it tested

Re:Failed injection.

[Xylantiel]

The root problem here is the companies that make the drugs that have known properties are refusing to sell them to the state for use in executions. How it is legal for the companies who sell the drugs to discriminate in this way I don't understand. I know WHY they are doing it... due to pressure from anti-death penalty activists. But how it is legal?

And just to be up-front, I'm actually anti-death-penalty. But forcing state officials to euthanize people in inhumane ways in order to make headlines does not seem... humane.

Re:Failed injection.

[bobbied]

How does one test lethal injections?

You don't really have to test. It's pretty clear what you need to do and medically it's easy to cook up a way to do that using commonly available drugs. If you can induce unconsciousness, there is no pain. Then it's a question of how you want to induce death and what medication does that.

Or you can advertize for volunteers and actually test right?

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

How does one test lethal injections?

I think they just did.

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

One tests the drugs. It was a big deal in the weeks before; they got some kind of drugs from somewhere (unknown drug, unknown concentration, unknown dose, unknown source), and successfully fought a challenge by the defense which asserted, among other things, that the public has a right to know how (and with what) these procedures are being carried out, and that the defense can't practically mount a constitutional challenge without that information. They want to kill people with secret liquids, thereby dodging the oversight that's blocked them from doing this previously.

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

How does one test lethal injections?

They just did.

Re:Failed injection.

[Talderas]

On animals, but make sure you don't use mice and have have male researchers in the room. Otherwise their stress levels going up may cause a reduced sensation of pain and taint the tests.

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Robert Patton, the director of Oklahoma's department of corrections, when doctors felt that the drugs were not having the required effect on Lockett, they discovered that a vein had ruptured.
This is not a problem related to the drug(s) used but incompetent administration.

This in spite of myriad objections that the drugs being used for both lethal injections had not been tested ...
How does one test lethal injections?

Clearly, we need to expand the death penalty to ensure that there are plenty of experienced executioners around at all times.

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

How does one test lethal injections?

On politicians ?

Re:Failed injection.

[amRadioHed]

Things are legal by default, the question should be why do you think it is illegal for companies to choose who they sell their products to? Is their a specific law that is being violated? Keep in mind the companies are not based in the US so our laws don't apply.

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

Goats and pigs can be used at about the same mass and heart / vascular volume.

Re:Failed injection.

[AmiMoJo]

No competent doctor can administer a lethal objection because of their Hippocratic oath.

Re:Failed injection.

[sjames]

Try it on a politician first. If it works OK, then it can be used on humans.

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

Animals? How does anything get tested.

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it's because the supply chain is dependent on Europe. European law forbids enabling the death penalty, so the European suppliers (either of drugs or pre-cursor) are forbidden to export to the United States.

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

Animals?

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Robert Patton, the director of Oklahoma's department of corrections, when doctors felt that the drugs were not having the required effect on Lockett, they discovered that a vein had ruptured.
This is not a problem related to the drug(s) used but incompetent administration.

This in spite of myriad objections that the drugs being used for both lethal injections had not been tested ...
How does one test lethal injections?

A blown vein is not incompetence .... vessels blow all the time. It is a known complication of the procedure.

As for the drugs not being "tested" the only objection I can see to using a benzo is that some people have a paradoxical reaction. They would probably have better luck with a massive opiate infusion plus or minus benzo followed by the paralytic (Vecuronium) and then the KCl.

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

How does one test lethal injections?

Other animals.

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can refuse to sell you merchandise, service or anything else and I don't have to tell you why.
In fact, I don't even have to speak to you, I don't have to correspond with you and I don't have
to read your emails.

When a prison system buyer attempts to contact me I can slam down the phone, rip up their letters
and delete their emails. I can simply fire my distributors if they do not respect my wishes
how my product is sold.

I can also slap on a ridiculously prohibitive price if I want to. I can say, sure.. you want to use it to kill
people. Okay so that will be a $100 and all territories west of the Mississippi.

You see, this is not a socialist shithole like in Europe. This is AMERICA.

Re:Failed injection.

[KeensMustard]

It's not a question of whether it is forbidden by European law, just that those companies, like most people outside the U.S find the idea of execution unconscionable and thus don't WANT their products used for this purpose, and refuse to sell them on that basis.

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

This in spite of myriad objections that the drugs being used for both lethal injections had not been tested ...
How does one test lethal injections?

The same way you test any medicine: start with an animal study.

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like they just did - by executing someone...

Re:Failed injection.

[Anonymous Coward]

> How does one test lethal injections?

On black people, it would appear.

(captcha is "dreads"!)

Re:Failed injection.

[Jerome from Layton]

What do Veterinarians use to put animals "to sleep"? Surely the Europeans haven't cut off that supply.

Torture is not okay.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the government is doing it doesn't make it right.

'Untested' had nothing to do with the botching.

[oneiros27]

It's one thing to claim about the drugs being untested .. and you can still probably claim they're untested, because all of the reports are suggesting that it was a blown out blood vessel, so the whole thing would've been botched no matter what drugs they had actually used.

(and before you say I'm just against executions ... I actually think that prisoners who are sentanced to life without parole should be given the opportunity to be administered euthenasia ... but the costs of capital punishment as they curently exist are so high that it should only be reserved for those really, really horrible crimes (which this one would seem to be).

Re:'Untested' had nothing to do with the botching.

[Anonymous Coward]

The costs are only high because of legal and trial costs to do it. The actual injection is cheap. But frankly it would be cheaper just to get a big gun and shot him in the head. Quick and painless.

Re:'Untested' had nothing to do with the botching.

[GoCrazy]

The cost of capital punishment is high mostly because they're allowed unlimited appeals.

Re:'Untested' had nothing to do with the botching.

[wagnerrp]

but the costs of capital punishment as they curently exist are so high

The costs are so high because the finality of the sentence results in the case cycling around appeals courts for many years. If the convict willingly chooses the death penalty, this won't be an issue, and the costs will be low.

Hmm

[argStyopa]

I guess the conclusion would be that if I don't want to die in agony on a gurney, probably a good idea not to be a murderer.

Personally, I don't understand why they don't just push them off a tall building. Gravity is free, nearly 100% guaranteed to work, and they have a few private moments then to reflect on their lives while they plummet. Plus on the faint chance it didn't work, trying again is free too. And then crows get to eat afterward, so it's "green" as well.

Oh, and "sciencehabit also points out a study indicating that around 4% of death row inmates in the U.S. are likely innocent." let's be careful with our use of language here. This is not 'random innocent people being dragged off the street, convicted of a capital crime, and being sentenced to death." This is generally "lifetime criminal ne'er-do-well scumbag who has caused incalculable misery in his* life and a rap sheet 10s of pages long if not hundreds, being *finally* convicted of something and then, after decades of appeals and 00s of 000s of $, finally executed".

*his, because it's generally a man. Evidence of sexism in the criminal justice system? (Obviously not, but I highlight it to preemptively mock the people that assume that disproportional racial convictions are likewise "proof" of racism in the system.)

Re:Hmm

[Zironic]

The law forbids cruel and unusual punishments and regardless of cruel, pushing someone off a tall building is certainly unusual. It would also I suspect be a bitch to clean.

Re:Hmm

[OzPeter]

It would also I suspect be a bitch to clean.

Nah, the cleaning bit is easy. The drop is actually straight into the grave. No mess, no fuss. /sarcasm

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

it would only be unusual for the first 100 or so death, after that t would be accepted and therefor usual. as for Cruel well yeah it would be cruel as there would be no way to revers the push if the 11th hour phone call came in from the governor or president pardoning them.

Clean up? get a hose and wash it off.

Now that being said, I am not for the death penalty, unless it is for that .01% of fringe cases where the crime committed was so heinous as to be unforgivable. And then only after years of confirmation that they indeed did commit the crime. We cannot afford to execute one innocent.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is generally 'lifetime criminal ne'er-do-well scumbag who has caused incalculable misery in his* life and a rap sheet 10s of pages long if not hundreds, being *finally* convicted of something and then, after decades of appeals and 00s of 000s of $, finally executed'."

The problem with your "generally" is that it may apply to many, but not all. Did you notice that it was 4.1%, not 50%. It is the less common case that the person is innocent. There have been persons who are not habitual criminals who have been arrested, tried, convicted and executed.

The father who was convicted of the arson death of his daughter based on the testimony of an expert witness that the burn patterns could only have resulted from an accelerant was executed despite the expert later realizing while doing more research that the pattern was consistent with a non-accelerant fire instead. The expert is now convinced that this man was innocent and had been telling the truth the entire time. Absent the desire to kill, this father could have been released.

Re:Hmm

[wagnerrp]

That would need to be a fairly large grave. The CEP of an uncontrolled falling body is pretty high. I suppose you could fit weights on their shoulders and fins on their legs.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and "sciencehabit also points out a study indicating that around 4% of death row inmates in the U.S. are likely innocent." let's be careful with our use of language here. This is not 'random innocent people being dragged off the street, convicted of a capital crime, and being sentenced to death." This is generally "lifetime criminal ne'er-do-well scumbag who has caused incalculable misery in his* life and a rap sheet 10s of pages long if not hundreds, being *finally* convicted of something and then, after decades of appeals and 00s of 000s of $, finally executed".

This quote makes you sound like complete trash. It doesn't matter if a person has a mile long rap sheet or not. Killing them for a crime they didn't do is fucking terrible. Innocent is innocent is innocent. Do you have any other criteria you'd like to list here that you'd be willing to use to ostracize and eventually eliminate people from the world? Hell, by your reasoning, we might as well kill every person that walks through a jailhouse door. That's just one more mark on their resume to be killed for argStyopa, isn't it?

I shouldn't bother talking to you. You seriously suggest that we push people off tall buildings. Presumably those buildings are in the middle of a city. Then we let crows eat the rotting corpses while people go about their business.

Re:Hmm

[omnichad]

A bit expensive building a tall building next to every grave site. Makes for an interesting business district.

Re:Hmm

[argStyopa]

That's the part where I'd rely on Crows.

I mean, talk about significantly greener solution, as well!

Re:Hmm

[argStyopa]

"Innocent is innocent is innocent. "
Simply asserting it doesn't make it true.

Look, I'm being utilitarian here.
Not every person is precious, simply because they're alive. Shit, we've got BILLIONS of people on this planet, it's inconceivable that they're all worth having around.
Now, of course you're "shocked" at such an assertion - that life isn't inherently precious. It simply isn't; it's ubiquitous. People breed CONSTANTLY.

I'm willing to concede without argument that MOST people are in fact valuable in some possible way.
But after hundreds, if not thousands of hours of legal argument in front of a Judge, Jury, and at least 2 lawyers, it's abundantly clear that the 'death process' is neither reflex nor arbitrary. To assert so is simply nonsensical.
After such an investment, if it's abundantly clear that the person is a net deficit on the human balance sheet...well, just get rid of 'em. There's going to be more piling up faster than we can get rid of them, I'm almost certain.

I'm sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but as much as eating every gram of sugar and fat is an evolutionary legacy of our 'humans desperately on the edge of survival' phase, so too (I believe) is our unexamined premise that every human life is incredibly sacred. It was obviously important when we were barely able to survive on the leavings of alpha predators, and our brains offered this clawless, armorless, weak, naked primate only the faintest of evolutionary advantage in a collective sense - but not nearly enough to make much of an individual difference against better-equipped, better-evolved predators above us. That's almost demonstrably NOT true now.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

"We cannot afford to execute one innocent"

I love this line. So instead of killing one person on death row who is innocent, we instead have how many innocents killed by prisoners who are released because we don't have room for them any more. But I guess morally it's acceptable, because those people were killed by a criminal. Yeah, ok.

Re:Hmm

[Mathinker]

> if it's abundantly clear that the person is a net deficit on the human balance sheet...

Said the person who AC thought was a net deficit on the human balance sheet.

Hang them

[Anonymous Coward]

Just hang them it's a tried and true method of making sure the prisoner is executed. All of these alternative ways are just there to make people feel better.

Re:Hang them

[RailGunner]

A simple .22lr to the head would do the job quicker.

And before someone tells me how much better a .45 ACP would be -- I carry a .45 every day. Love the round. But a .22 is a cheaper round, and typically doesn't exit the skull, instead, it bounces around the inside of a skull scrambling the brain.

Re:Hang them

[charles05663]

+1 on the .22lr. My guess is it is not used because it is up close and personal. Maybe they could have convicted killers draw straws do the execution. I know the Communists prefer the bullet to the head method. Heck, the used to bind people together so the could perform multiple executions at the same time to save ammo. And on a plus, it would not be fail the "cruel and unusual" test. Both the Soviets and the Chinese have executed 10's of millions with this method.

Eye for an eye!

[RocketRabbit]

He should have been shot in the head and then buried alive. The death penalty is not assisted suicide. It should be terrifying and the circumstances should be as close as possible to those the perp inflicted on their victim. This devil deserved to be tortured to death.

Re:Eye for an eye!

[GameboyRMH]

Sorry this is the 21st century, savagery is somewhat frowned upon now.

Re:Eye for an eye!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see how you feel about that, when someone does that to you or your family member.

Re:Eye for an eye!

[gweihir]

Ah, a would-be torturer. You do realize, that you exceed the level of immorality of your would-be victims, right?

Robert sapolsky talks about reciprocity, etc

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWZAL64E0DI

Should we bring back the firing squad?

[swb]

Or even something simpler, like some kind of coup de grace, maybe a 12 gauge slug to the back of the head? Maybe by making executions much more visceral we'll be less inclined to make them clean and clinical and stop thinking about them as clean and clinical.

As bloody as such an execution would be, perhaps it should be so and the judge, prosecuting attorney and lead low enforcement investigators could be mandated to be in attendance and watching. It's one thing to plant evidence, withhold exculpatory information from the defense, commit gross prosecutorial misconduct and run quadrennial judicial elections on your persona as a "hangin' judge" when the convicted is executed somewhere else in a manner more consistent with outpatient surgery than an actual execution.

But when you know ahead of time that if the death penalty goes through you're going to see a human being have a good chunk of the head taken off in front of you, maybe you might not sleep so well knowing it happened because you broke the rules.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[Anonymous Coward]

"But when you know ahead of time that if the death penalty goes through you're going to see a human being have a good chunk of the head taken off in front of you, maybe you might not sleep so well knowing it happened because you broke the rules."

That is of course assuming that the people witnessing the execution aren't the type who would enjoy the experience of seeing it, or feel nothing due to differences in brain structure/chemistry.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/vi...

How many people in such positions of power can we say are "normal" or in some way "deviant?"

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a part of me that says "Make executions public and you'll get a real deterrent".

But I believe that we should reserve the death penalty for the real animals that need putting down. That said, we should also be better than said animals. Inert gas asphyxia is cheap, reliable, and painless. We do it in kill shelters all the time. Put the criminal in a "gas chamber" and fill it with nitrogen. They just go to sleep. No need for drugs, electric chairs, hangmen, or firing squads.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[gman003]

I've thought for a while now that the method of execution should be decided by the convicted.

He wants injection? He gets injection. He wants the firing squad? He gets a firing squad. He wants to skydive into an active volcano with no parachute? He gets it. As long as it's guaranteed to be lethal and isn't grossly impractical, it goes.

That has the obvious benefit of making sure that the execution is as humane as possible, because the person with the most interest in making it humane is the one making the decision.

It could have a second benefit. Namely, what happens if he chooses "execution by old age"? You could easily block that as "grossly impractical", but I see that as a feature, not a bug. It basically turns into life imprisonment with no parole, only way out is to actually overturn the verdict. So if you're truly innocent, that might be a good option. Otherwise, it's arguably a worse execution than many others, although that's a very arguable point.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Utah had a death by firing squad only a few years ago at the request of the dying. Death was near instantaneous, and the organs were donated (you can't donate lethal injection organs, for obvious reasons). Cost? Probably 3 dollars for 4 bullets.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to think that everyone on death row is innocent.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.

This is why the introduction of lethal injection so disgusted me. Stop trying to sanitize it.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[Anonymous Coward]

the judge, prosecuting attorney and lead low enforcement investigators could be mandated to be in attendance and watching.
 
So you're saying the innocent should be punished too? In that I mean that the prosecutor can only recommend a punishment and the law enforcement agent is only there to apprehend the suspect. Neither one makes the actor guilty and neither one has the final say in what happens to the a actor. You claim it's so they get the best defense and so that evidence won't be planted. So what if they did get the best defense and no evidence was planted. Why would you still demand this measure?
 
You're just as bad as the people who want to see others done in with no trial at all... you're holding people up to a punishment regardless of their place in the crime.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[AmiMoJo]

Because when years later the family proves that the guy was innocent the fact that his head was blown open will increase the monetary damages they receive. Any undue harm that the victim came to will cost the state money when they later decide he shouldn't have been executed.

Also there is the veneer of civility to the whole thing. The guy murdered someone, but the state is better than a common murder and at least tries to minimize the suffering of people it kills.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[sjames]

The prosecutor should be required to "push the button" personally. If they really believe the person must die, they should be willing to make it so.

Usually, there's more than one 'button'. The second one should be pressed by the governor. The third by a legislator who voted to implement or keep the death penalty, selected at random.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[Whorhay]

I seem to remember someone talking about a work of fiction where the prosecuting attorney was obligated to share the fate of anyone they got the death penalty for. I could see that working as a means to halt some prosecutorial misconduct but I can certainly imagine circumstances where it wouldn't.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better still: make it a hard and fast rule that if any executed prisoner is later found to have been innocent then the prosecutors, judge and jury members who voted yea are all immediately executed as well... After all -- they are the ones who believe the penalty for murder should be execution, right?

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[newcastlejon]

I've thought for a while now that the method of execution should be decided by the convicted.

I choose old age.

In seriousness though, going back to what swb said up there ^^, as far as I'm concerned the judge should be the one to carry out the sentence and to hell with the logistical complications. If you're going to sentence a person to death you should at least have the moral fibre to off them yourself. At the very least the judge should be present and perhaps the jurors too; let them see firsthand what they have wrought. Perhaps then, "hangin' judges" might be a little less common.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to think that everyone on death row is innocent.

You think that everyone on death row is guilty? My, how incredibly naive of you!

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chased over a cliff my a mob of topless women in helmets.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[nessman]

Great movie!

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[bhiestand]

I've thought for a while now that the method of execution should be decided by the convicted.

That has the obvious benefit of making sure that the execution is as humane as possible, because the person with the most interest in making it humane is the one making the decision.

I endorsed this idea before I started opposing the death penalty. The problem I see is that this approach assumes the convict is sane or rational. I would guess that the average death row inmate has rather poor decision making skills (or, in Texas, has serious mental disabilities).

It's not humane just because someone chooses to be eaten by lions. I'm not even sure if it would be humane if they were laughing during.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[bhiestand]

So the smart murderers become judges while the dumb ones go to jail?

I could be wrong, but I think the judge used to be present for executions? I'd be curious about this, but I don't think it would actually deter anyone from using the death penalty. People can be pretty callous once they start judging people.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[mrsurb]

Or death by snu-snu!

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[righteousness]

I would definitely choose the guillotine.

Re:Should we bring back the firing squad?

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Maybe by making executions much more visceral we'll be less inclined to make them clean and clinical and stop thinking about them as clean and clinical.

You nailed it. There are two evils here.

The first evil is that the taking of life is necessary. I personally believe this is a necessary evil, there should be such a thing as a 'capital crime', one for which death is the sentence. By no means should it be a fast track slam dunk from conviction to execution. People make mistakes and there must be time and opportunity to appeal, for new evidence or suppressed evidence to come to light.

To anyone who might think that life in prison without chance of parole is an acceptable alternative to execution, I beg you to try to distinguish it from human torture and slavery and ask yourself ... which is more enlightened: an eye-for-an-eye society in which the sentence is compatible with the crime ... or one that places human beings in bare concrete zoos for life? It is a tough question and I'm glad to see some thoughtful answers, especially those with opinions that differ from my own.

The second and more insidious evil is whitewashing the act of execution in ways that make it seem more 'palatable' or 'executioner-friendly'. Replacing the firing squad with a needle is just the lame substitution of one horror for another. What does that say about us? No, I do not believe it is of any value for the accused to suffer or be conscious of the throes of death once the moment arrives.

Dispense with the drugs, the gasses, the electricity, even the rope-hangin'. Drugs and electricity are heinous because due to human physiology they are unable to accurately deliver a precise and unequivocal moment of death. Hanging is particularly heinous, it is merely a form of beheading where the brain is guaranteed seconds of torment. I say we can dispense with that.

By all means use technology. Bring back the firing squad: multiple large caliber guns directed by computer software that targets the head and neck. The usual multiple enable buttons that seem to help several executioners sleep better at night (but why I'm not sure). Then a random delay, then the guns electrically fire in unison so the bullets arrive before the sound. No pain or even cognition for the accused, but lots of mess.

For the families of the condemned -- every funeral is a closed casket funeral. No amount of cosmetic surgery will re-create that peaceful, angelic innocent face lying in the casket, arms folded, that invites denial and confirmation bias.

And use Google Glass facial recognition software for the firing squad guns. I love Google but I also like to rattle their cages.

Torture may have been Intentional.

[cheetah_spottycat]

Let's take a brief look into the mind of the supporters of the death penality. A BBC reporter investigated a few scientifically proven humane ways to kill a human being, and offered them to Robert Blecker, Professor criminal law and constitutional law at the New York Law School: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... So, with people like these on the spearhead of the pro-death-penalty movement ... can we expect a humane death penalty?

at the risk of injecting (pardon pun) reason...

[Anonymous Coward]

the challenges have been around which specific drugs would be used & sourcing (compounding pharmacies vs pharmaceutical companies) - they could have been using brand Diprivan (propofol) & would have gotten the same result. I saw an interview w/the guy who more or less "invented" lethal injection where he said the drugs always work, it's the delivery that can get screwed up b/c it's carried out by "idiots" (i.e. prison guards). this was a physical problem, not a chemical one but that said if they can't reliably run an IV the drugs & sources are moot.

and that said, I'm definitely pro-abolition but this being /. let's get the science and cause/effect right...

There is already a solution...

[biochozo]

Nitrogen hypoxia. Cheap. 100% effective. Readily available. Doesn't torture the inmate. Why don't we use it? Apparently it's not satisfying our need for justice to equal revenge.

Re:There is already a solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Suffocating to death is sort of a torture. I'm okay with it. But it is not pain free.

Re:There is already a solution...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

What exactly would cause pain in simple oxygen deficiency with a regular CO2 outflow?

Re:There is already a solution...

[ImprovOmega]

Or use helium instead, so that everyone's last statement has that extra layer of humor on top of it.

Re:There is already a solution...

[biochozo]

Not only is it painless, but it happens on accident and the person can be completely unaware that they need to do something about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... tl;dr version: "Accidental nitrogen asphyxiation causes about eight deaths per year in the United States... After a number of accidents in which humans suffocated in nitrogen without any warning, the suggestion was made in 1995 that hypoxic atmospheres be used for the humane killing of humans."

Re:There is already a solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Apparently it's not satisfying our need for justice to equal revenge.

Neither is the needle, but we use that.

Re:There is already a solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Couldn't they just use the euthanasia machines?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think the euthanasia machines that use helium might be a viable alternative.

The fact of the matter is that the international companies that make the drug used for euthanasia will no longer allow it to be used for executions due to international pressure.

That seems to me the international community must condone hanging, electric chair, firing squad or lifetime imprisonment (because, surely, decades of mental restraint, solitary confinement and attacks/rapes by other inmates is not "torture"... Heck we treat dogs more "humanely" by putting them down using those same drugs not allowed in "executions")

Government Abuse

[Jason Levine]

I wonder how many of the people who are saying "What's the problem if the death penalty is horribly painful? This guy deserved it!" are also the ones who express horror over the government torturing people to get information from them or spying on everyone just on the off chance that one of those people might be planning something bad. If your government is willing to go to such lengths to get information from people, then do you really want to give that government the ability to kill any prisoner that they deem to be a "waste of taxpayer money"?

Re:Government Abuse

[Sowelu]

I'm pretty sure that those groups don't have much overlap. They seem to be polarized and linked opinions in terms of political party.

Re:Government Abuse

[GameboyRMH]

There is probably very little overlap. Those saying "what's the problem with this?" are probably also the "I have nothing to hide" and "torture could save lives" crowd. Basically this is the crowd that wishes it weren't so taboo to use special salutes, marches and symbols to show their support for their ideology.

Re:Government Abuse

[I'm New Around Here]

Are you talking about the Democrats, or the KKK?

But, that's being redundant.

Re:Government Abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we kill murderers the way they killed their victims? For instance, that woman who drowned her three kids by driving the car into a lake? I would strap her in, drive the car into the lake. Pull her out, revive her, do it again. Pull her out, revive her, then do it one last time for the third child. Cruel? At least she would understand why it was happening. What the hell did those kids do to deserve drowning?

And with a multiple murderer, choose the worst method he used, and kill him that way. Eye for an eye sort of thing. Why the hell should they get a humane death?

Why is this so difficult?

[Rashkae]

Leaving assite entirely the debate over death penalty to begin with, when we have to put down our pets, vets don't seem to have any trouble putting them to sleep, (and then inject more and more until sleep becomes permanenet.) Maybe the state just needs to fire to their medical experts and hire some country vet?

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[cheetah_spottycat]

There are many known painless and very effective ways of killing a human being. For example, suffocation with Nitrogen gas. It will cause a state of euphoria, then unconsciousness, then death. No pain, dead simple (pun not intended), and 100% success rate. It's a no-brainer. Or a simple, massive overdose of pretty much any anesthetic will do. It does not take complicated mixtures. But it would mean, your convict would die "happy". And that thought would be too much to bear for the victims. The death penalty is not about justice. It is about revenge. It is designed to be gruesome, the suffering is intentional. The deliquent is no longer considered a human being, and the pig deserves to suffer. It seems to be consensus even here on slashdot.

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[wisnoskij]

Because many of the euthanasia methods for pets would not pass the "cruel" clause in "no cruel or unusual punishment", as they have been tested and we know that they are slow and painful.

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[gweihir]

Only problem is that this attitude makes those that have it worse human beings that the criminal being executed.

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[Anonymous Coward]

They were using the same drugs but the companies in Europe that make them refuse to sell them for human executions. That's why they were trying new drugs.

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Leaving assite

Where the hell is "assite"?? And why didn't you capitalize it, if it's a place-name?

Or did you mean "aside"?

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[cheetah_spottycat]

I absolutely agree! Just in case that wasn't obvious from my posting :)

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[sjames]

Part of their problem (and this should be a hint to them) is that few doctors will have anything to do with it. Even the few who will can't actually cause the death or they will lose their AMA membership.

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, we are talking about the suffering of a guy who raped and tortured a young boy. I have long been against the death penalty. I find it impractical and prone to abuse and I do not like being like him in any way. But even so, if he suffered, I can spare him no tears.

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is designed to be gruesome, the suffering is intentional."

This is false. The lethal injection form of execution is designed to be painless. The first injection is an anesthetic to knock the patient out, and the subsequent injection is to stop their heart. Medical boards refuse to endorse the procedure, causing a shortage of doctors to administer it. Drug suppliers are hesitant on supplying the medication, which is why the drug shortage led to this new drug combo in its place.

The only part that was 'botched' was it wasn't as quick or painless as intended.

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[Uberbah]

Not so. Nitrogen gas - cheap, effective, and painless - is specifically rejected by death penalty advocates because the victim feels no pain. They want the person to suffer as they die.

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[gweihir]

It was not quite, thanks for the clarification!

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it would mean, your convict would die "happy". And that thought would be too much to bear for the victims. The death penalty is not about justice. It is about revenge. It is designed to be gruesome, the suffering is intentional. The deliquent is no longer considered a human being, and the pig deserves to suffer. It seems to be consensus even here on slashdot.

So use a wood chipper. Feet first.

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is largely because most of the major drugs used for anesthetics are produced by countries that would stop exporting them to us if we used them for lethal injection. Some of them actually have laws in place to prevent this. This would also mean a ban on the drug for hospital use and we'd be up shit creek.

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[GumphMaster]

Your vet will typically use high dose pentobarbital or sodium thiopental in euthanasia of cats and dogs. Pentobarbital is the drug that the Danish manufacturer is withholding from the US penal system because they use it in executions. Sodium thiopental is no longer manufactured in the US and cannot legally be exported from the EU for use in executions.

Re:Why is this so difficult?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the larger chunk of the competent medical experts out there don't want anything to do with capital punishment. Something about that whole "first do no harm" thing. So you have less competent people or simply prison guards trying to get needles into veins. Add that several of the European anesthetic manufacturers have stopped selling to Americans to prevent their products from being used in executions, and you have a situation where the state of Oklahoma switches from anesthetic to sedative for the first round, and goes to great pains to keep the source of its sedatives secret (i.e. dodgy), so their supply doesn't get cut off.

Why is all this complexity required?

[Anonymous Coward]

Put them to sleep, slit their throat.

Wow

[Vyse of Arcadia]

There are a lot of bloodthirsty people here on Slashdot.

I think it's a good thing to try to move away from the, "He made others suffer so he should suffer," mentality. Punishment, capital or otherwise, should be about rendering the criminal incapable of commiting futher crimes to protect the populace. It's self defense, nothing more. Making sure that criminals suffer is barbaric. It turns my stomach a bit, and I liked that cinnamon roll.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably thought the movie "A Clockwork Orange" was a brilliant idea too...

Re:Wow

[Yosho]

Welcome to the internet. Most of the armchair criminal scientists here feel that the purpose of the justice system is to get revenge and slake the bloodlust of the accusers. In that aspect, society hasn't really advanced a whole lot since the dark ages. If you suggest that maybe the justice system is about rehabilitating criminals who can be rehabilitated and protecting society from the ones who can't, all of them will call you a hippy liberal who is soft on crime.

Fortunately, most of those people don't have any actual influence on the justice system, but you still have to watch out for the ones that do.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but humans are bloodthirsty in general. It is not a bug, it is a feature. I am not a violent sociopath but I'm sure if I read a vivid account of this guys misdeeds every ounce of my body would be burning with rage, and having him die in agony would not seem like a bad idea.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about revenge or deterrence or suffering, it's about removing somebody from society who has no place in it.

Now we could lock people like that away for life, but taxpayers don't want to spend money to keep people like him alive. So we have capital punishment to kill them.

Re:Wow

[tacokill]

We need to start differentiating between people we are rightfully scared of and those we are just mad at.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about revenge, it's about prevention. This guy will never again harm anyone.

Re:Wow

[hypergreatthing]

usually death is a fairly certain way of rendering the criminal incapable of doing anything afterwards.
Baring some odd zombie resurrection.
How would you feel if the criminal escaped, or got out early on good behavior just to have them kill/rape/etc all over again? Does it feel like justice?

Re:Wow

[Bryan Ischo]

I read what the executed person in this case did, and *that* turned my stomach. Knowing that he was executed had no visceral effect on me.

If somebody did what that guy did to anyone I cared for, I would not hesitate to end his life myself. Given that I feel that way, I think it would be hypocritical for me to deny others the same consideration.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are a lot of bloodthirsty people here on Slashdot."

Said the man who isn't a vegan, because he couldn't care less about the REAL suffering that he causes every day, by the food choices he makes... you arrogant, self-righteous idiot.

Of course somebody who kills somebody should suffer.

But as I posted above - simply split the country into two parts, you can have your liberal la la land with no death penalty, and the other 95% of us who want the death penalty can have it (via electric chair) in our part of the country.

Guess which part of the country ALL of the criminals and murderers will move to? YOUR PART. You arrogant prick.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

/. has turned into a bastion of Liberatarianism

You know the people who say the use of force is wrong under all circumstances; except their own personal views.

Re:Wow

[Vyse of Arcadia]

I think you misunderstand. I'm not arguing against the death penalty. I think for some people it's completely justified, the same way you'd put down a dangerous animal. But it should be quick and humane. We shouldn't get any joy or satisfaction from ending a life. If we enjoy killing someone, we're not so different, deep down inside, from other people who enjoy killing people (e.g. serial killers.)

The capacity to enjoy violence terrifies me.

Does it feel like justice?

This is part of the problem. Justice is just another word for revenge. It's petty and primitive. Justice shouldn't feel like anything. Penal systems are not about getting justice; they're about protecting the general populace.

Re:Wow

[number17]

I can't believe people like you are cool with having their daughter shot and buried alive. Thats what this guy did.

Re:Wow

[Vyse of Arcadia]

I think you misunderstand. I'm not arguing against the death penalty. I think for some people it's completely justified, the same way you'd put down a dangerous animal. But it should be quick and humane. We shouldn't get any joy or satisfaction from ending a life. If we enjoy killing someone, we're not so different, deep down inside, from other people who enjoy killing people (e.g. serial killers.)

It's not that I think they should have let him live, it's that the capacity to enjoy violence terrifies me. And I'm seeing that capacity in a lot of Slashdotters right now.

Re:Wow

[Vyse of Arcadia]

I don't understand why people conflate my distaste for revenge (i.e. justice) with condoning his actions. The man was rightfully put down. I don't think that sort of criminal can be rehabilitated. But making sure he suffers puts us on his level. It's petty and barbaric, and when someone has the capacity to enjoy violence, for any reason, it gives me serious misgivings about them. Like, for example, all the people saying that he should have suffered.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey and you can have your little "Vegan" la-la-land too where people like you
stagger around in various stages of dementia and physical declineas soy proteins
and lack of animal fat slowly breaks down your tissues and eliminates critical cell
lines over time. I never have any pity for Vegans when they come to me. They
brought their diseases onto themselves by their own choice, who am I to argue
when someone wants to die young to save the poor animals, right?

Re:Wow

[thesandtiger]

They're very emotional about this kind of thing, and as a result they are the absolute worst kind of people to have any kind of say into how people who commit (or, at least, are convicted of committing) crimes are treated.

I don't think they're necessarily bloodthirsty, just incapable of resisting emotionality or using reason when it comes to this stuff. Many - perhaps even most - people are like that. Which is why there's a whole criminal justice system to begin with, as a way to at least try to reduce the impact of people who are not capable of regulating their baser impulses.

The criminal justice system we have is pretty shit-tacular in that it does not work (compared to other nations' systems) when it comes to reducing crime, reducing recidivism, protecting society, rehabilitating prisoners or being cost effective. But at least it's better than vigilante mobs formed by the very people who are here screaming for blood and relishing the suffering of those they want to see executed.

Re:Wow

[I'm New Around Here]

They're very emotional about this kind of thing, and as a result they are the absolute worst kind of people to have any kind of say into how people who commit (or, at least, are convicted of committing) crimes are treated.

Instead it should be the doctors and therapists who decide the person who butchered four people wasn't really responsible, and we should all show our love for him instead of punishing him? Those people should be in charge of deciding how murderers are treated?

Do you also think that the people in Ukraine who feel that Putin is an enemy who is invading their country are the worst kind of people to decide how to defend Ukraine from Russian invasion?

Re:Wow

[thesandtiger]

Demonstrating my point pretty well, thank you. You're so off kilter by this idea that you're conflating two very different scenarios - the criminal justice system is rather different than national defense in a number of ways, but your emotionality about the subject is preventing you from making a reasoned argument, and you're flailing around trying to make something - anything - stick.

Which is exactly the opposite of what any person should want from a criminal justice system. We shouldn't want people desperate to extract revenge, but rather people who want to minimize the overall harm done to society.

If I am ever charged with a crime, I want people who aren't going to let some flowery description of what people THINK I might have done causing them to undervalue evidence that is exculpatory. Wouldn't you want the same? Let's say you were accused of raping and murdering a child - would you really want the public's demand for revenge, the jury's disgust with the crime, the prosecutor's inflammatory rhetoric to sway the jury, or would you rather the evidence be evaluated instead, emotions put to the side?

Further, were I actually convicted of a crime, I would want people to decide on what to do with me to be people who are able to resist the urge to merely punish me, but rather seek to rehabilitate me or, if they believe it isn't possible, to be able to recognize that removing me from society so that I can't hurt others while still preserving the ability to release me if I am later found to have been innocent is a vastly better solution than simply killing me, and shrugging it off if I am later found innocent. I can't imagine that you would want people who want to hurt you just because they're enraged at what you did deciding on your punishment, but maybe I'm wrong.

And finally, more harm than good is done by our system as it stands now. This is proven by the fact that other nations with more civilized criminal justice systems have lower crime rates, lower recidivism rates, and overall better outcomes when it comes to people who have interacted with their criminal justice system than we do. If revenge is the best way to handle this, then why do countries like Norway have better outcomes, when everything about their system repudiates the idea of punishment and instead focuses on rehabilitation and the greater public good? If you aren't aware of the evidence I suggest you educate yourself; if you are aware of the evidence then again, you're action on emotion, not reason, and that is not a good thing when talking about a criminal justice system.

Sneer all you like at the idea of doctors and therapists being involved, but the facts - and they are facts - are that approaching criminal justice with the idea of rehabilitation and repair works far, far better than approaching it with the idea of extracting revenge.

Re:Wow

[I'm New Around Here]

Demonstrating my point pretty well, thank you.

No. Not in the least.

You're so off kilter by this idea that you're conflating two very different scenarios - the criminal justice system is rather different than national defense in a number of ways,

But quite similar in a number of ways. Do governments have the right to decide to protect their citizens from attack?
Do governments have the right to take a life if needed to protect their citizens?

How much difference is it if the threat is from an external source or internal source?

but your emotionality about the subject is preventing you from making a reasoned argument, and you're flailing around trying to make something - anything - stick.

You are the one making the argument, that only people with no emotional attachment to the offense are qualified to deal with the offender. In fact, only people with no attachment to any offense are so qualified. Everyone else is a mindless animal out for blood.

The only group of professionals I see that fit your requirement of detachment is the mental health doctors and therapists. This is also the group that time and again wants to set murderers and rapists free, because the criminal -- oh, sorry, the patient -- yes, the patient has been cured and is no longer a threat. Until they do it again.

Which is exactly the opposite of what any person should want from a criminal justice system.

What we should want from a criminal justice system is to know our families are safe from random or deliberate attack. We should want to ensure those who would attack and kill average citizens are removed from society, with no chance to harm any one else. That is the simple truth of what the criminal justice system should be designed to provide.

We shouldn't want people desperate to extract revenge, but rather people who want to minimize the overall harm done to society.

I agree, we shouldn't want people who are desperate to extract revenge. But that doesn't mean that the system does not have some amount of revenge built in. And it doesn't mean that all punishment is about revenge. Sometimes it is simply doing what needs to be done to prevent a future attack on another person.

If I am ever charged with a crime, I want people who aren't going to let some flowery description of what people THINK I might have done causing them to undervalue evidence that is exculpatory. Wouldn't you want the same?

And that applies how in cases such as this, where there is overwhelming evidence that the convicted person performed inhumane acts on a child, and finally killed him?

Let's say you were accused of raping and murdering a child - would you really want the public's demand for revenge, the jury's disgust with the crime, the prosecutor's inflammatory rhetoric to sway the jury, or would you rather the evidence be evaluated instead, emotions put to the side?

I begin to see your problem.

You can't separate the sentence from the prosecution.

Of course I would want the trial to be as fair as it could be. But if convicted I would want the sentence to ensure the defendant could never do those actions again. Even if the defendant was myself.

You think you are the first to attempt to show I'm wrong because I don't think about it happening to me? This is one of the topics I have been discussing for a couple decades with various people, both in person and online. Trust me, my stance doesn't change just because I may be the one facing the death penalty.

Further, were I actually convicted of a crime, I would want people to decide on what to do with me to be people who are able to resist the urge to merely punish me, but rather seek to rehabilitate me or, if they believe it isn't possible, to be able to recognize that removing me from society so tha

If they're having so much trouble testing drugs...

[lagomorpha2]

Why don't states just approve capital punishment using a respirator and a tank of inert gas like helium or nitrogen? Nitrous oxide would do as well as make the experience less unpleasant. Seems a lot more reliable than injecting chemicals.

Cruel and Unsual Punishment

[charles05663]

The framers of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights did not think it to be "cruel and unusual" to hang people. Why do people today think it is? Why not go back to what was acceptable when the foundations of our nation were laid.

Re:Cruel and Unsual Punishment

[WindBourne]

At one time, the world was thought to be flat, and after that, many thought that the universe rotated around the earth (and plenty of GOP still do). Is that what you want to go back to, or are you going to allow science and knowledge to take hold and make changes in our policy?

Re:Cruel and Unsual Punishment

[charles05663]

At one time, the world was thought to be flat, and after that, many thought that the universe rotated around the earth (and plenty of GOP still do). Is that what you want to go back to, or are you going to allow science and knowledge to take hold and make changes in our policy?

At the time this country was found both of these statements were know to be false. How is this related?

Re:Cruel and Unsual Punishment

[ceoyoyo]

As time goes on we learn new things. Need a concrete example? At the time your nation was founded, keeping people as slaves was just fine. Do you want to go back to that too?

Hanging is fairly humane if you do it right. If you mess it up, which is very easy to do, it's not.

Re:Cruel and Unsual Punishment

[GoCrazy]

"Is that what you want to go back to" straw-man arguments are terrible, FYI. No one's arguing to believe that the world is flat (although it's a myth that people believed it for so long...knowledge that the world was round dated back to Ancient Greece) or that we should keep slaves again. When you bring up those and bash them, you're just arguing with yourself.

Despite advancements in "science and knowledge", I don't think hanging has really changed.

Re:Cruel and Unsual Punishment

[stenvar]

or are you going to allow science and knowledge to take hold and make changes in our policy?

Some of the worst regimes in human history were based on "science and knowledge". Policies should be made by elected politicians, and I prefer them not to be scientists or engineers, and to be highly skeptical of scientific claims.

I also think there are very few issues in government or politics where science should even matter; which legitimate government policies do you think should actually involve science?

The main area where science comes into play is in the legal system, and judges and lawyers already are well versed in using scientific information.

Re:Cruel and Unsual Punishment

[stenvar]

At the time your nation was founded, keeping people as slaves was just fine. Do you want to go back to that too?

Bullshit. To most Americans, slavery was an evil legacy of European colonialism, feudalism, and imperialism, the very reason they left Europe in the first place.

But Americans knew that if they tried to gain independence and at the same time end slavery, they'd accomplish neither. So, what they did instead was ban the importation of slaves and leave abolition of slavery as a political issue to the new nation. That was a decision born out of pragmatism, not ignorance.

Re:Cruel and Unsual Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the worst regimes in human history were based on "science and knowledge"

Other way around. Some of the worst regimes in human history are based on a lack of science and knowledge.

The government that the US Founding Fathers created was based on their knowledge and observations of governments past and present. They observed the world as it was/is, and designed a system in response.

Contrast this to your typical totalitarian regime, who does the reverse. They are usually led by a bunch of self-centered pricks who have a system already in mind, one where they have all the power, and then twist and distort their view of reality to make their system fit. They CALL their distorted observations science, but they're anything but. This can be easily demonstrated if one dares to provide alternative observations that do not align with the Party Line.

Re:Cruel and Unsual Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. To most Americans, slavery was an evil legacy of European colonialism, feudalism, and imperialism, the very reason they left Europe in the first place.

Take off the rose tinted goggles. Most Americans, like any other people, simply didn't care. Most people didn't own slaves. Most people didn't see what goes on inside a slave owner's house. Most people were too busy with their own problems. Out of sight, out of mind.

Only a few principled people, such as the Founding Fathers, cared. If most Americans really cared, they would act like their Founding Fathers, who willingly freed their own slaves soon after independence was won.

That didn't happen. In fact, the opposite happened in the south, because it was pragmatic to keep their plantations going.

But Americans knew that if they tried to gain independence and at the same time end slavery, they'd accomplish neither.

Except Vermont did abolish slavery at the same time they declared independence. They fought in the revolution just the same.

No, independence and ending slavery is totally possible together. What wasn't possible was creating a confederation between the former colonies.

But if Americans were really against European colonialism, feudalism, and imperialism that slavery stood for, creating a confederation of states shouldn't have priority over abolishing slavery. They could have, like Vermont, abolish slavery first, and then figure out how to unite into a single nation afterwards.

To put it poorly, your forefathers cared more about the Feds (that is just so large and wonderful today) than abolition. This wasn't done out of pragmatism, but a greedy desire for creating a centralized federal power to take the place of the British aristocracy. The first confederation was in fact deemed too weak, which led to the birth of the second Constitution, the one you have today. Again, this was done before abolition, revealing what priorities Americans had.

Re:Cruel and Unsual Punishment

[ceoyoyo]

Sure they did. That's why the slave trade was protected in the US constitution until 1808, right? 1808 is when the importation of slaves was banned, rather after the country was founded. And why most of the founding fathers were slave owners? And why two thirds of the years between Washington and Lincoln the country was run by a slave-owning president? Or why slavery continued to be legal in parts of the US until 1865-6, well after it was abolished in most of the rest of the world?

Your statements are (very) twisted truth rather than ignorance, so either you're practicing some hefty revisionist history or you've taken the word of someone who was.

The point remains. When the US was founded, slavery was legal, extensive and protected by the constitution. Americans have since decided slavery isn't tolerable and banned it. The morals and ethics of the US at the time of its formation are not the same as the morals and ethics of the present day.

Re:Cruel and Unsual Punishment

[stenvar]

Your statements are (very) twisted truth rather than ignorance,

Trying to present Europe as a benign and enlightened continent against a backwards US is a ridiculous attempt at rewriting history. Yes, Britain banned slavery at home, a gesture that cost it almost nothing, while exploiting, enslaving, oppressing, and mass murdering people in its colonies for more than a century. France, Germany, and the Netherlands were even worse. Feudalism and indentured servitude, for all practical purposes slavery, also existed well into the 19th century in parts of Europe. And European nations and their citizens were massively racist, anti-Semitic, and intolerant of minorities until after WWII, and under a thin veneer of tolerance, they really still are.

The morals and ethics of the US at the time of its formation are not the same as the morals and ethics of the present day.

You're right: the US has become a much more moral, much less racist, and much more tolerant society over the last two centuries. And it has dragged Europe along kicking and screaming. Oh, Europe has had plenty of intellectuals talk about the rights of man and liberty and tolerance, but in practice, Europe has largely been governed by the aristocracy, socialists, imperialists, colonialists, communists, dictators, oligarchs, and fascists.

Re:Cruel and Unsual Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to present Europe as a benign and enlightened continent against a backwards US is a ridiculous attempt at rewriting history.

Yes, you are ridiculous.

The one who brought up Europe was you, which is a ridiculous attempt at a red herring. Hey guys, don't bash the US, Europe is soooo much worse!

Britain banned slavery at home, a gesture that cost it almost nothing,

That's a compliment. Britain ended slavery without as much bloodshed as the US did. The Reconstruction was also a mess.

while exploiting, enslaving, oppressing, and mass murdering people in its colonies for more than a century.

That's no worse than the US, who exploited, enslaved, oppressed, and mass murdered their own slaves and native Americans. And fought the Mexicans and the Spanish and the Canadians over land and other issues, no different than bickering European nations. Even after abolition, segregation still existed well into the 19th if not 20th century. By 1850's, the US even JOINED BRITAIN in fighting the Chinese in the Opium wars. Then there's fighting Spain and winning a few territories and annexing Hawaii...

The long and short of it is that the US is no better or worse than Europe. It has its own Walter Whites who were eager and happy to join in on the empire business that the Europeans were engaged in. And they did, and surpassed Europe in imperialism and became the superpower that we have today.

Feudalism and indentured servitude, for all practical purposes slavery, also existed well into the 19th century in parts of Europe

And in parts of the US. Pinkertons crack down on workers to keep them as indentured servants. Jim Crow laws and Chinese Exclusion Act to keep colored folks down.

You're right: the US has become a much more moral, much less racist, and much more tolerant society over the last two centuries.

You're wrong. You confuse being PC and whiny with being moral. The US whines more about racism. That doesn't mean they're less racist or more moral.

On one side, bitching and moaning about your president's birth certificate isn't being less racist. On the other side, you have people who kneejerk call anybody who dares question the president's policies as being racist. That's not being tolerant.

Oh, Europe has had plenty of intellectuals talk about the rights of man and liberty and tolerance, but in practice, Europe has largely been governed by the aristocracy, socialists, imperialists, colonialists, communists, dictators, oligarchs, and fascists.

So? Same is happening with the US. Plenty of intellectuals are here on slashdot right now talking about liberty and tolerance. They keep complaining how they really have no control over their out-of-control government run by the elites at the two major entrenched parties.

Re:Cruel and Unsual Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

The one who brought up Europe was you, which is a ridiculous attempt at a red herring. Hey guys, don't bash the US, Europe is soooo much worse!

No, in fact you made this bogus comparison: "Need a concrete example? At the time your nation was founded, keeping people as slaves was just fine. Do you want to go back to that too?"

That's a compliment. Britain ended slavery without as much bloodshed as the US did.

Britain didn't "end slavery", it merely ended it where there weren't any slaves.

The US whines more about racism. That doesn't mean they're less racist or more moral.

I'm not talking about the intellectuals; they are as stupid in the US as they are in Europe (a lot of US intellectuals are infaturated with Europe for some reason). I'm talking about the day-to-day life in the country. I've experienced it first hand: intolerance, racism, hate crimes, and anti-semitism are far more widespread in Europe.

I'm not going to correct the rest of your b.s. Pick up some history books some time and overcome your obviously deficient education.

What ever happened to good old bullets?

[Nidi62]

Simply design a chair with an adjustable height, single shot firearm(really just a triggering mechanism, a chamber, and a short barrel) that is placed nearly against the skull at the forehead. Have a remote trigger, so all the executioner has to do is push a button (or hell, even just have him start a mechanical timer). It's quick, almost guaranteed to be instantly or near-instantly fatal, and cheap. You could place the gun at the base of the skull so that it guarantees the brain stem is severed, but then the witnesses have to deal with the face blowing out. Through the front (or maybe side) of the forehead is a cleaner wound and allows for an open casket. Or, if they wanted cleaner and less traumatic for the witnesses, place it up against the heart. Much cleaner kill, but a little slower. Either way, much less painful than electrocution or lethal injection.

Yes, I am for capital punishment, because I see it as what it's name states: punishment. It is not a deterrent, it is the ultimate form of punishment for someone who has been shown to have committed especially heinous acts. Give them life in prison and it only gives them a more captive audience to prey on, unless you put them in solitary confinement (and that even closer to torture than lethal injection is). And yes, I understand that innocent people have been convicted and executed, but how many other innocent people have been convicted and spent their entire lives or died of health or other reasons in prison as well? The average wait on death row is over a decade, and can reach over 20 years. This includes numerous appeals, and there are a number of non-profits also working to find exculpatory evidence for people on death row. In fact, I am for a longer period between sentencing and execution(perhaps allow the person to waive extended time if they prefer), because it allows more time for the innocence of the person to come up. However, the treatment of death row inmates should be a little better: while they rightly should be excluded from other inmates, they should still be allowed regular exercise and contact with guards and visitors if only to preserve their mental health.

Re:What ever happened to good old bullets?

[Anonymous Coward]

As to ensure death you would have to aim for the heart, head shots are too unreliable.
this also give the option of an open casket where a head shot would have to be closed casket.

Re:What ever happened to good old bullets?

[Demonantis]

A properly designed hanging also works this way. Hell, build in a safety factor with extra height and the head literally pops off. No funny contraptions or risk of a ricocheting bullet. Lethal injection is probably one of the worst methods of performing the death penalty. It just looks cleaner. There is just too much unreliability in how the individual reacts to the medication.

Re:What ever happened to good old bullets?

[wasteoid]

A .22 caliber round to the base of the skull would likely not blow the criminal's face off, and that technique has been verified effective by mobsters for a long time.

Re:What ever happened to good old bullets?

[Anonymous Coward]

Methinks you spend too much time thinking about different ways to shoot people. I find you disturbing,

Re:What ever happened to good old bullets?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we just have them all go into a sealed room in a single group and drop some zyklon b in a hatch in the wall. For efficiency, we can have a crematoria right on the other side of this room.

Re:What ever happened to good old bullets?

[shutdown -p now]

If you're okay with waiting for 20+ years before executing someone, why is it not okay to wait until they die of old age? They're still dead in the end, and there's that much more chance for them to prove their innocence if they are indeed innocent.

Execution by Lethal Injection ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Execution by Lethal Injection is designed to make the judiciary feel less guilty about killing someone, not cause some executionee less distress. As such administering an anaesthetic followed a cattle gun followed by opening the jugular veins would be more economical and just effective.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

[Type44Q]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you want to find the most raw, concentrated evil per-capita, you'll find it in fundamentalist cultures like modern-day Afganistan and the American Bible Belt.*

*It should be noted that I'm merely speaking from experience and my comments concering [the Bible Belt in general and Oklahoma in particular] might be tainted with a degree of personal bias because (A) I am not a cultural-relativist and (B) I live there. :p

Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again...

[gweihir]

Seems an accurate description. Sometimes I wonder whether actually having the Christian faith being more than a fantasy would be desirable: All those evil scum would get a really nasty surprise after death.

The problem is the image send back to us

[advid.net]

Do you want to know exactly how bad I feel that this guy suffered for an hour?

I think as little as me, but that is not the point.

What I personally dislike is the gruesome picture that this botched execution sends back to society.

(I also feel the need to state that I'm against death penalty, for miscelanous reasons)

Re:The problem is the image send back to us

[Virtucon]

You would have hated public hangings then.

Jury Panel

[Major Blud]

I was recently assigned to a jury panel in a murder case. The state I live in has capital punishment.

I went into the courtroom with a fairly solid conviction against the death penalty (excluding military cases, i.e. fratricide, where soldiers should be held to a higher standard and capital punishment could be considered a necessary component of discipline).

As the evidence was presented, I started to question my beliefs. The defendant was accused of murdering and raping a 12 year old boy, and was a twice-convicted sex offender (why he wasn't already in prison is an entirely different question). This person showed no remorse for the crime, and if given life imprisonment, would still be able to see his friends and family....something his victim could no longer do. It really made me question my thoughts on capital punishment.

In the end I wasn't chosen for the jury, and the guy was found guilty. I still believe that capital punishment is wrong and doesn't solve anything, but life imprisonment, although no cake walk, doesn't necessarily equate to justice or punishment...because let's face it, this criminal won't be rehabilitated and shouldn't be given the chance.

Re:Jury Panel

[gweihir]

The solution to that is simple: This person is not a criminal, this person is severely mentally ill and likely in a very real sense unable to make a moral judgment. For that, closed mental institutions exist. You cannot punish people that are so damaged they are incapable of understanding what they did wrong. You can only exact perceived revenge on them, and that is exceedingly immoral.

Re:Jury Panel

[Anonymous Coward]

What sentence was delivered?

Re:Jury Panel

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree with everything except showing "remorse for the crime". Some criminals could be great actors, and some who might genuinely be remorseful may not ever express it externally. I find that explicit statement of remorse to be of little use.

Re:Jury Panel

[Anonymous Coward]

And that 18 yr old pot smoker will get to meet his new "Friend" in prison.
And all the young guys sent in after him.

Re:Jury Panel

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean... a HOMOSEXUAL PAEDOPHILE? Say it ain't so! We all know that 'gays' are helpless little fairies, right? And men who rape other men are not, in fact, 'gay', because 'gays' say so! So a man who rapes a woman isn't actually 'heterosexual', if heterosexuals say so?

Steady on there, you almost came round to the side of reality, but that would make you a 'bad person', because the JEW-TV told you, right? You idiot.

Re:Jury Panel

[Anonymous Coward]

According to that person, you are the damaged one, incapable of understanding what he did was ok. For people like you, closed mental institutions exist. What

You can only exact perceived revenge on them, and that is exceedingly immoral.

By what retarded standard is punishment for a crime immoral? Is it immoral to be fined for speeding? YOU MUST HAVE PUNISHMENTS FOR BREAKING LAWS, OR YOU HAVE NO LAWS. This is an absolute. Society can not exist without punishment. If you wish to debate morality of punishment, go somewhere that laws don't exist and debate it with them, if they don't skin you and eat you, first, for being white and weighing over 300 pounds.

Re:Jury Panel

[Anonymous Coward]

From the statement I see no evidence the person was mentally ill or incapable of making moral decisions. Since a jury convicted him I doubt that he was as he would have had amply opportunity to present a defense. (I assume the story is from a country with a reasonable judicial system.) He just made the wrong decisions. Not everyone who does something awful is mentally ill and/or incapable of knowing right from wrong.

Re:Jury Panel

[ben_white]

For that, closed mental institutions exist.

Closed mental institutions don't exist anymore. Since the late 60's we have, as a society, been systematically closing these vital institutions. This has made our penal system our de facto long term option for people like this with untreatable mental disease.

Re:Jury Panel

[PeeAitchPee]

You are stating that the only reason someone would act the way this killer did was because they were mentally ill. You are dangerously assuming that every one of these violent people is unable to tell right from wrong. I would say that history is filled with examples of people who committed mind-blowing atrocities for political reasons, greed, lust, revenge -- you name it. These are people who knew that what they were doing was wrong and chose to do it anyway. To blame every extreme act of violence on "severe mental illness" is an oversimplification at best. The vast majority of criminals absolutely consciously choose to do what they do. Face it -- people generally have free will, and some choose to commit heinous crimes. Saying that *every* violent killer is unequivocally severely mentally ill because "there's no other reason they would do that" is just silly, and some might say that such a statement seeks to remove accountability and personal responsibility from the equation.

Re:Jury Panel

[Anonymous Coward]

> For that, closed mental institutions exist.

We do check whether they understand right and wrong and those who do not are held incompetent to stand trial. In the trial I was involved in, where the death penalty was not an option, they ruled that based on the fact that the murder was planned and executed by someone who, while mentally ill, still recognized the wrongness of what they were doing and that punishment was appropriate.

That person is receiving psychiatric treatment... while in prison for life. I believe this is a just arrangement. Those of us out here also have a right to live and I believe that interest is more compelling than the freedom of an individual who would take that right from us, whatever their excuse.

Re:Jury Panel

[Uberbah]

As the evidence was presented, I started to question my beliefs. The defendant was accused of murdering and raping a 12 year old boy, and was a twice-convicted sex offender (why he wasn't already in prison is an entirely different question). This person showed no remorse for the crime, and if given life imprisonment, would still be able to see his friends and family....something his victim could no longer do. It really made me question my thoughts on capital punishment.

Every person ever released from death row was horrible scum...up until their innocence was proven. Or some that were executed, like that father in Texas for burning up his three little girls in a house fire, when all modern science and experts say he never should have been convicted.

Re:Jury Panel

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you CAN punish those who are so "diseased" that they can't understand what they did wrong. We call them "rabid dogs", and we don't keep 'em around. We put them down.

Guess what? It isn't PUNISHMENT, it is protecting the remaining population from a menace. So forget your school shooting spree, or child raping fantasy. We will put you down so you can't do it again.

Not revenge. Deterrent. Prevention. Protection.

Re:Jury Panel

[gweihir]

Other societies have them. Societies that have a lower level of moral corruption, that is. But I agree that the US has surrendered morality to the god of mammon here, as it does in so many other cases.

Re:Jury Panel

[gweihir]

"Telling right from wrong" is not enough. That is a legal fiction that server to be able to imprison more people and feed the prison industry hungry for more material. What counts is whether people are capable of acting on their understanding. Quite a few are not and that is where "illness" comes in.

Re:Jury Panel

[gweihir]

A thin pretext. This does not even come near what is actually happening and just a sign of a morally corrupt system that attributes more power of decision to people than they actually have whenever it is convenient and economically desirable (to feed the prison industry). It also serves to prevent those involved in the immoral judgment involved as pretext (i.e. convenient lie) so that they do not have to doubt whether what they did was actually right. "Understanding right and wrong" sounds nice, but what actually matters is whether people are able to act on that understanding. Many "criminals" are not and would have ended up in a mental institution instead in a society not utterly corrupted by greed.

Re:Jury Panel

[gweihir]

Only utterly sadistic scum "punishes" rabid dogs. Any halfway decent person puts them down as fast and as painless as possible.

But keep lying to yourself.

Re:Jury Panel

[Anonymous Coward]

Justice and punishment are 2 different things. Justice is also very subjective, your sense of it may be entirely different from the family of the victim to the judge and prosecutor. Technically, Punishment is as well, but most people tend to agree when the punishment is harsh enough like life without parole.

Re:Jury Panel

[Anonymous Coward]

NO.

His problem is not ours and we have no reason to suffer and take any risk because of his personal problem, which is not caused by us. Understanding is not needed.

We live by certain rules to guarantee the very basics of life. When someone breaks it, he should be thrown out of this world, unless there is another guy who's capable and willing to confine that asshole to his own house, and suffer the same treatment if the asshole under his protection breaks out.

Anyone who disagree with capital punishment should have serial murderers sent to live with them.

Re:Jury Panel

[Major Blud]

In this case the person was a repeat offender, so he had to have been told that his behavior at some point was wrong. Unfortunately I don't have details for as to whether or not he received any type of treatment after the first two crimes (which he should have at least had a psych evaluation).

What would mental health treatment accomplish in this situation? Would you seriously consider letting someone like this integrate back into society? I'm sorry, but this person is "criminal", whether sane or not, when a murder is committed. To say otherwise is absurd. As stated earlier, I'm against the death penalty, but giving this person treatment in the hopes of curing him so that he can be released later doesn't serve justice for anyone.

For a crime so terrible as was committed, I don't see life-imprisonment as "revenge", but "punishment". Any justice system would fall apart without punishment.

GOP is just sad.

[WindBourne]

Is that the GOP forces medicare part D to pay top $ for meds, services, which is why it costs more than ACA.
Yet, the same GOP is unwilling to fork money for the drugs necessary to do these executions correctly to have them manufactured in the US.

What a looney bunch that has a great deal in common with the worst leaders in history.

Re:GOP is just sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look, it's that "The Republicans" troll again! Pay no attention to the Obama stickers on his butt.

Re:GOP is just sad.

[Sardaukar86]

What a looney bunch that has a great deal in common with the worst leaders in history.

From the perspective of the rest of the world, the D's and the R's fit this description equally well. North Americans who argue D over R or vice-versa at this stage in the game are merely advertising their own political naivete and willingness to be duped.

It costs half a billion US dollars or more to mount a presidential campaign, effectively ensuring the incoming president will remain forever beholden to the big money interests that backed their campaign.

This would be a great argument for those in favour of unregulated, free-market capitalism. Well, it certainly might be, were we discussing anything other than the presidency of the US.

Re:GOP is just sad.

[WindBourne]

Oh, I dislike both parties. The GOP is destroying us, while the dems are pretty much doing nothing.
However, I pointed out straight up facts about this and then we get the neo-con/tea* trolls that run out and decry it, while ignoring the fact that their party is destroying America, while ignoring the constitution.

Re:GOP is just sad.

[Sardaukar86]

Fair comment, I guess I missed your earlier post because I mistook the context of your comment. There are a disturbing (and surprising) number of apologists on this forum and figured your post was as such. Apologies for the faulty assumption.

Perhaps.

[westlake]

all of the reports are suggesting that it was a blown out blood vessel, so the whole thing would've been botched no matter what drugs they had actually used.

The reports all come from the same source: the team that botched the execution. It is essential that there be an independent autopsy,

Thats tour test

[Anonymous Coward]

So how is this supposed to be tested?

Untested?

[tpstigers]

How exactly does one 'test' lethal injection drugs?

Where is the origional lethal drug ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how the same gouverment which can issue "national security letters" to force companies to divulge all kinds of information as if they are doughnuts isn't capable forcing the company to keep delivering their lethal drug. You know, because of that same "national security".

some people use that get out of jury duty

[Joe_Dragon]

But any ways we need to cut back on capital punishment. To many cases of over aggressive prosecutors with weak evidence that have lead to the wrong person being found guilty.

Re:some people use that get out of jury duty

[Major Blud]

Agreed. The entire process was sort of surreal. The DA ask you to rate your beliefs' on a scale from 1-5; 1 being in favor of the death penalty %100, 5 being against. Turns out that if rate yourself a 1, you're automatically excused from the jury.

There are many cases of prosecutors withholding evidence in these types of cases, but I can say without a doubt that this wasn't one of them. There was so much evidence that you basically caught the defendant with his hand in the cookie jar; DNA evidence on the victim's body, verified by two independent labs.....text messages on the defendant's phone luring the boy out of his house, security cameras showing the defendants vehicle near the crime scene, etc etc.

Re:some people use that get out of jury duty

[ganjadude]

theres only been 1300 or so executions since 76 in a land of 400 million. Id say that we dont have too many executions in this country http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...

Re:some people use that get out of jury duty

[thesandtiger]

Just remember that in many cases where someone has been wrongfully convicted, the jurors felt the same as you did about the certainty of the person's guilt based on the evidence they were shown.

Every time someone says they're absolutely certain of the guilt of a person in a given case, especially to the point where they would be willing to execute (not that you were) the person if convicted, they would do well to remember that fact.

Re:some people use that get out of jury duty

[Major Blud]

Agreed as well....which was one of my arguments against capital punishment. We must not allow ourselves, however, to let a person walk free because of this. I have no problem keeping a person like this in prison, away from society, in case such evidence does present itself. I fail to comprehend how some people could disagree with this.

Re:If they're having so much trouble testing drugs

[advid.net]

I've read that in Switzerland their suicide kit comprises a helium bottle and a plastic bag.

Also when I give 0,5 litre of my blood, I know that I may faint if I don't drink enough and then stand up suddenly.
I guess making someone give all of it would be fatal with no pain.

(again I want to state that I'm against death penalty, I don't suggest anything to carry on those punishments, just wondering why they still use drugs)

America, bringing up the rear.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

What are the other countries that have death penalties?

China, Malaysia, vietnam, Uganda, Indonesia, Gambia, Thailand, India, pakistan, Bahrain, Botswana, Equitorial guinea, Bangla desh, UAE, North Korea, Kuwait, afghanistan, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Sudan North and South, Ethiopia, Somalia.

Nice crowd.

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[butalearner]

What are the other countries that have death penalties?

China, Malaysia, vietnam, Uganda, Indonesia, Gambia, Thailand, India, pakistan, Bahrain, Botswana, Equitorial guinea, Bangla desh, UAE, North Korea, Kuwait, afghanistan, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Sudan North and South, Ethiopia, Somalia.

Nice crowd.

Bringing up the rear? Don't sell us short, dude, we execute way more people than some of those places.

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[Anonymous Coward]

And even India is conflicted on the matter. Part of the reason the drugs in this case were untested is because India (as well as the EU) stopped exporting the previously used, well-tested lethal injection drugs.

Since all American companies stopped selling them and imports are almost impossible to find now, states that insist on capital punishment by lethal injection have been forced to look for untested alternatives that are shrouded in secrecy. No surprise, then, that they've botched two in a row in horrific fashion.

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you list the countries that don't require ID to vote?

The amount of liberalism on this board is frankly depressing. This piece of shit scumbag didn't care about the 19 yr old girl he buried alive. Fuck him. I am glad he suffered.

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[Uberbah]

How about you list the countries that don't require ID to vote?

How about rummage through your list of "vote fraud" cases and find some that would have actually been prevented with ID? Nearly every case you trolls bring up was either registration fraud, or voting by absentee and in person, or illegible due to being a felon. None of which would have been prevented by requiring drivers license or even a passport.

Voter ID = a rational for disenfranchisement. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the other countries that have death penalties?
China, Malaysia, vietnam, Uganda, Indonesia, Gambia, Thailand, India, pakistan, Bahrain, Botswana, Equitorial guinea, Bangla desh, UAE, North Korea, Kuwait, afghanistan, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Sudan North and South, Ethiopia, Somalia.

Nice Crowd

To quote your mom: "just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean you have to as well, if everyone jumped off a bridge would you follow?

Modern, adult equivalent: just because Europe thinks their complete pussification (ermahgerd, every human life is precious, I fear guns, don't hurt anyone, can't we all just get along?) is somehow ""enlightened,"" doesn't mean any other country should, or might be better off, following suit.

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many European states have lifetime involuntary commitment to unmonitored mental hostpitals, without even a trial?
Finland imprisons more than 10,000 people without trial, whereas in the US we wait until they actually commit a crime, and get convicted at a trial, before they go to prison - even if they are crazy.

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[evilviper]

Here in the US, we don't believe in guilt by association.

Actually, instead of lagging, I'd say the US is leading the western world. Executions were stopped for several years, and the US is becoming the model for how they can be reintroduced and used in a more modern world. The only question is how long it will take until the EU follows the US' lead...

The "peer pressure" argument falls flat on its face when you look through the past century, and see how much of the world quickly adopted some policy based on a new sociological fad, only to reverse it after people realized that it really didn't have any basis at all.

For example, how many countries began pilot programs for forced sterilization of the poor and infirm (eugenics) in the 1930s? The US was surely lagging behind on that, too.

in the early decades of the 20th century [...] eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Many countries enacted[11] various eugenics policies and programmes, including: genetic screening, birth control, promoting differential birth rates, marriage restrictions, segregation (both racial segregation and segregation of the mentally ill from the rest of the population), compulsory sterilization, forced abortions or forced pregnancies, and genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

We're just lucky that eugenics got quickly Godwin'd, and quickly went away. Perhaps lifetime imprisonment will go the same way. After all, it's patently absurd to call execution inhumane, and promoting decade after decade of imprisonment... especially segregated or solitary confinement.

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've missed out Japan, the other "you think you're a first-world country, and yet..." along with Yankland.

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed at least Japan.

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[I'm New Around Here]

I noticed you missed Japan in that list.

Any particular reason for that?

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't say about the other countries, but in a 3rd world like Malaysia, the corruption is such that you can be spared the death penalty if you know who to talk to and bribe, unless the victim's family is connection to the ones in power or the case is very high profile in the media. Well at least corruption aides is something worthwhile like neutralizing capital punishment.

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it would undermine his point, that's why. That's also why he scrambled the order: to make this omission less obvious. Japan undermines his point in two ways. First, it illustrates that it is possible for a civilised country to have the death penalty, and secondly, Japan's careful procedure teaches a few lessons on how the US could improve itself.
As if that wasn't bad enough, several of the countries in his list don't currently use the death penalty. In other words, he deliberately plays fast and loose with the facts in order to make a political point.

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[Anonymous Coward]

Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. Although many idiots in South Korea and Taiwan (my country, sadly) now are trying to abolish it.

You'd be much safer living in Singapore than in any European cities; backward as you might call it, they still remember one of core duties of government is to protect people, not to tax people and use the money to feed murderers and rapists and then release those dangerous animals back to society after a few years of fun in free hotel.

Re:America, bringing up the rear.

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed out Japan...

celebrity drugs?

[peter303]

There has been steady spate of celebrity deaths from overdoses of sedatives back to Marilyn and before. In many cases the drugs may have made them lose count of doses or they are feeling really insomic and overdose. The Micheal Jackson "milk" propofol should be used at triple dose for quick and painless ending.

Re:celebrity drugs?

[gweihir]

The US is incapable of producing Propofol for some reasons that are not entirely clear to me. Seems to be a consequence of the insane compulsion to sue anybody and everybody that US citizens have. The European companies that produce it are morally, and maybe even legally required to withhold it if misused for executions. The choice hence was to use Propofol for a few more executions but as a consequence lose it permanently for medical use as well.

Re:celebrity drugs?

[kyrsjo]

Executions is a very small market afterall, and for anything else importing works fine. There may also be patent issues, and I believe the drug is quite complicated to make.

!newsfornerds

[H_Fisher]

While this clearly does "matter," in the grand scheme of things - we need to debate whether governments should kill people for crimes, and which crimes are worthy of death, and all of the issues that pertain to this subject ...

This is not what I come to Slashdot to read about. I come to Slashdot for tech industry news. For intellectual property news. For news about trends in programming, hardware, etc.

And I, for one, as a person who's been reading /. for years, am getting sick of seeing it turning slowly but surely into just another news aggregator.

Stories like this one, with the added flamebait about "4 percent of people on death row are likely innocent" -- even if it's true, we know why it's being put there -- it's flamebait -- make me want to stop coming here.

we have a very long way to go.

[dlt074]

tell that to those who order drone strikes on their own citizens with out so much as a grand jury inditement.

This is why we should use bullets.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheaper and more reliable.

Re:This is why we should use bullets.

[Virtucon]

I prefer a rope. It's reusable. Think Green!

He certainly wont be committing any more crimes

[daninaustin]

He certainly wont be committing any more crimes

If we're arguing method as opposed to morality

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just bring back the firing squad? It's pretty fail-safe from what I hear.

It's really very simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people clearly deserve to die for the crimes they have committed. However, I will am not convinced that our current criminal justice system is capable of truly deciding who those people are with 100% certainty. Lock them up for life, restrict their freedoms, treat them with the level of respect that a PRISONER deserves.

"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

[Guest316]

Nowhere it the Constitution are those rights declared. You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, and property can be taken away with due process of law, and nowhere are you guaranteed happiness or even its pursuit.

Untested Lethal Injection Drugs

[wile_e_wonka]

How does one test a lethal injection drug?

Re:Untested Lethal Injection Drugs

[maxlybbert]

It clearly depends on the definition of "tested." My understanding is that most states require a trial run that kills an animal before any execution, so the claim that the drugs were untested is, in fact, false. Unless the definition is "not used in a previous human execution," which simply creates a conundrum that somebody had to be the first human trial.

Simple. Bring back hanging

[Anonymous Coward]

Really. Honestly. Bring back hanging. It's cheap, simple, and works every time. The Singaporeans have it down to a science. Wire cable, counterweight slightly more than criminal's weight. Bam. Done. Hand body to grieving family should there be one. If not, dog food.

Wrong dude

[Anonymous Coward]

I was really hopping they'll botch the other guy's execution so that he could suffer a very very slow and painful death
(the other guy programmed for execution that evening raped and killed a 11-month baby)

Oposition to death Penalty

[Archangel Michael]

I oppose the death penalty in practice. I also support the idea of the death penalty, in theory.

So the question is, how can this be? Well, there are people so evil that they deserve to be removed from this planet. However, because of the wickedness of the state, we cannot assure that everyone put to death actually is deserving the death penalty gets it, nor everyone deserving it gets it, it is wholly arbitrary in the net results. This makes it completely unsuitable for actual use.

Or as my dad used to say, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not"

Re:Oposition to death Penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there are people so evil that they deserve to be removed from this planet.

This is true, but it's true only because society failed them. Lockett's mother abandoned him at three, and his father abused him for many years and in many different ways. There are so many ways a civilized society might have prevented the monster that was Clayton Lockett. First, I have no idea about the circumstances of his birth; if he was even wanted in the first place. What if his mother and father had had greater access to contraceptives, sex education, or just education in general? What about abortion, or putting him up for adoption? If he was wanted at first (obviously he wasn't later), did child protective services never get wind of his situation or lack the ability to do anything about it? If so, did no adults in his life try to help him out or to even try to teach him right from wrong? If so, did he really avoid committing crimes before then, or did we simply miss his earlier crimes, making him feel like he would get away with it?

No doubt this is primarily a failing first of his parents and then of Lockett himself, but as long as the rest of us continue to ignore -- or worse, facilitate -- the situation that created Lockett, we'll continue to have to deal with people like him. True, many people in similar situations learn right from wrong and turn out to be productive members of society, but some people don't. So then what? Do we simply wait until they commit crimes heinous enough that we can kill them?

Re:Oposition to death Penalty

[Tyler Durden]

I oppose the death penalty in practice. I also support the idea of the death penalty, in theory.

Hmmm. Given your nickname I thought you'd be more willing to smite the dragons.

Re:Oposition to death Penalty

[Archangel Michael]

I'm not sure how my Nickname gives any such indication. But I am interested in how you actually came to that conclusion based on my nickname, perhaps a story I need to read?

Re:Oposition to death Penalty

[maxlybbert]

Revelation 12:7 ( https://en.wikisource.org/wiki... ): "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels [going forth] to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred and his angels;"

I'm not sure it sends a bad message

[daninaustin]

The message could be that if you commit a horrible rape and murder then you may be killed in a horrible way. I'm ok with that. If it makes one person fear the death penalty enough to avoid committing a crime then it's worth it. If not, then chalk it up to karmic justice. Everyone dies. A natural death isn't always pain free.

Re:I'm not sure it sends a bad message

[Cederic]

The message could be that if you commit a horrible rape and murder then you may be killed in a horrible way

It could, but it isn't. Try a couple of variants
- The message could be that if you are found guilty of committing a horrible murder and rape then you deserve to be tortured to death, whether you actually committed the crime or not
- The message could be that Oklahoma believes in retribution not justice
- The message could be that officials in Oklahoma think the bribes they receive from the drug company are more important than the constitution or the rights of fellow men
- The message could be as simple as Stay the fuck out of Oklahoma

I'd rather see justice.

Fuck this guy

[satan666]

None of the stories, CNN, HuffPost, NYT mention the victims.
Fuck this guy. What happenned was perfect justice.
They should've kept this POS alive and keep doing this for
days, weeks even. That's justice.

Again: Fuck this guy.

Horrified.

[Anonymous Coward]

Living in Europe, I read this thread. Horrors. I'm usually quite happy about the differences and similarities between our two parts of the world and try to learn from the for me different US perspective.

But this thread is like going to China; it makes me utterly aware that I'm European (from Sweden, less important here). I'm from the part of the world where the state does not kill it's citizens for whatever reason. And this this is in the end a question of moral. Discussing this from the point of costs is just not sane. Nor is it a technical issue on the best way to slaughter people.

I should listen more if these methods were effective in any measurable way, besides winning elections. But we all know this is not the case.

Quite near in time and space was the mass-murder committed by Anders Bering Breivik. in Utöya which killed 69 people. This was in a country were even the life-sentence is prohibited, Breivik was sentenced for 21 years. To my knowledge there were (almost?) no debate about a need for capitol punishment this case. Norway was, and despite this exception still is a society with very little violence. To me, it seems like the society focused it's efforts to take care of the victim's relatives and to rebuild the overall trust rather than revenge. I really admire this.

--alec

Re:Horrified.

[SecurityGuy]

Quite near in time and space was the mass-murder committed by Anders Bering Breivik. in Utöya which killed 69 people. This was in a country were even the life-sentence is prohibited, Breivik was sentenced for 21 years.

Interesting. And you think we're the ones doing it wrong?

To be perfectly honest, I think we're both doing it wrong. A guy like Breivik should never see the light of day again. He's too much of a risk. Everyone he would be around deserves safety from him more than he deserves freedom. I'd generally rather not execute people just because sometimes we get the wrong guy. I think the state killing an innocent person is too great a price if what we're buying is vengeance or just not having to pay to house a criminal. Consider housing them the price of not executing the occasional wrong guy.

Execution method

[Anonymous Coward]

Executions should be done by beheading with high powered laser. Eliminates the main objection to the guillotine, the blood. The laser cauterizes all the blood vessels as it severs the head.

Americans are savages living in the 21st century

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans are savages. It's as simple as that.
They should burn the constitution (no one respects anymore so...) and play by the only rule they seem to accept :an eye for an eye.

Re:If they're having so much trouble testing drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Helium hypoxia would be an excellent form of execution. It's painless for the condemned and it would make the process hilarious.

Star Trek reference

[spaceyhackerlady]

I am reminded of a TOS episode where two warring planets had made their war so clean and clinical that they had no real reason to stop it. Until Captain Kirk came in and showed them what war really was, something horrifying, to be avoided. Even if it meant talking peace with your enemy.

Capital punishment is such an atrocity. Maybe if it was shown to be that atrocity, there would be less support for it. Public hanging, firing squad, maybe even dust off the electric chair. Show that it's gross and disgusting, and that civilized people have better ways to keep their societies working.

...laura

Re:Star Trek reference

[newcastlejon]

It's older than that:

It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should become too fond of it. - General E. Lee.

I would be surprised if that was quoted in the episode in question, and even more surprised if someone else hadn't already expressed the same sentiment earlier.

What's so difficult about...

[benjfowler]

What's so difficult about life without parole? It'd probably work out cheaper, if you factor in the expense of capital cases. Besides, it's easier to pardon and pay compensation to somebody if they're innocent, if they're still alive.

No, its NOT just to prevent crime

[Viol8]

The system is there to PUNISH too. Now you can call it Karma in a hand waving dismissive way if that makes you feel superior but you're just dishing up the same tired old argument that the system is simply there to keep criminals away from the public. No, it isn't - its more than that. There is a natural justice that most normal people (ie not feeble minded metro-liberals) feel needs to be carried out with regards to heinous crimes since seeing that done is one of the foundations of a stable human society.

How is any of this OK?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can libertarian leaning people grant the government the right to kill people? Sure, they are killing dirt bags right now, but we know that governments grow and expand their powers over time. How can we be certain that in the distance future that the government won't eventually kill people for having too many children, or cutting off the wrong official in traffic? That's approximately when it stops being out government and starts being our ruler.

Zero tolerance for capital punishment, because the power over life and death is the last thing we should permit our government to have!

Heroin... the simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

The Psuedomedical argument is dead-on. Why are we trying to make the execution painless and less traumatic than what happened to the victim of the crime? Gravity and altitude or water are perfectly reasonable methods.

That said, we also spend far too much money to obtain drugs that the drug makers obviously don't want used for executions.

The solution is simple - the U.S. destroys literally tons of heroin each year. More than enough to handle the execution demand. Instead of worrying about the precision of the three drug method, go with a simple opiate overdose. It's just not possible for the condemned to feel pain. He gets high, he dies. Push the plunger until the heart stops, hook up the next guy.

Now the weird part is that every heroin distributor is going to be screaming - "That's my stuff in that needle! It's good enough for the state of Texas, it's good enough for you!"

Saves money, saves debate time.

Why not just use sedatives?

[BenSchuarmer]

Why are they experimenting with 3-drug combinations when they could just use sedatives? They work just fine for putting pets "to sleep".

Re:Why not just use sedatives?

[maxlybbert]

I'm not clear how the drugs are to blame for the bad execution. Is there some reason to believe that he wouldn't have blown a vein had they used the normal drug combo? And I agree: why go through the trouble of making up a foolproof cocktail? Simply keep adding sedatives until the heart or breathing stop.

Re:Why not just use sedatives?

[ebvwfbw]

Why are they experimenting with 3-drug combinations when they could just use sedatives? They work just fine for putting pets "to sleep".

I know... I don't understand why this is so hard. Little chloroform to go old school or so many other ways to do it. Give him a fatal dose of heroin for example. Fly him to the moon.

the probem is what exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

well if he wound up dead and it was a scheduled execution id say this is simply a tuning problem

Deservin's got nothin' to do with it

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like he got what he deserved. .. I don't see a problem.

I think the following two things are objective facts that all persons in this discussion would agree with:

1) Sometimes people do cruel or unusual things to other unconsenting people.

2) It is against the law for our government to inflict cruel or unusual punishments.

(Am I mistaken? Are either of these two "facts" disputed and not actually facts?)

And I think both you and I (but not everyone) would accept 1a: Some people deserve cruel or unusual punishments.

Either we're going to have to withdraw our support for that law (amend the constitution) or accept that our policy isn't be about giving people what they deserve. That doesn't necessarily mean we can't have a death penalty, just that there are limits to how far we can lawfully go, and those limits are likely to fall short of what some people deserve.

tl;dnr: people getting what they deserve, does not suggest a lack of problem.

Deterrent

[phorm]

Not so much deterrent as prevention. These guy won't be committing horrendous crimes again if they're dead. The problem is - of course - that they still do spend a lengthy time in prison and the death penalty isn't really any more cost-effective than imprisonment.

That said, you can't really argue in the way of "the perp still did it" as a point against punishment being a deterrent. You'll always have some people who do terrible things, but you can't really count those that DIDN'T commit a crime due to fear of punishment.

Bolt gun

[phorm]

Why not use the same devices used to put down livestock? Is what's good enough for our food not good enough for criminals?

Solve the general case

[Sloppy]

Why does the US still even have the Death penalty?

Why does the US still even have fines? Why does the US still even have imprisonment?

Answer any of these questions, and you'll have answered them all. Show the foolishness of any of them, and you'll have shown the foolishness of them all.

I think the most popular answer, is that we have these things to punish criminals. HTH.

Re:Solve the general case

[Anonymous Coward]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/study-1-25-death-cases-likely-innocent

That's a pretty pathetic justification. A fine for minor offences is a lot different than taking a persons life, with completely different consequences.

Just get a rope!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why we are spending millions of dollars dragging this crap through the courts when we can solve the problem with $10 of rope from the hardware store and a nearby tree. I'll even give them the rope, lowering taxpayer cost to $0.

It's certainly a tried, tested, and true method. Quick and painless.

Or do you think they'd complain and want to know who manufactured the rope first? Fine. I'll leave the plastic label on it for them to read. Again, a simple solution.

Or, alternatively, just bind his hands and tie a plastic bag over his head. Suffocation is pretty painless also--he'll just pass out and fade away. And again, cost: $0--you can get a plastic bag for free from almost *anywhere*.

Re:Just get a rope!

[JockTroll]

This is the government. Since a plastic bag is $0, they'll pay it about $25000.

Sick bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

All i can think of when i see the picture of the room where people is being murdered is: What would the future generations think of this?, i can only find a resemblence to burning witches on a bonfire. What troubles me the most is that there is actually spectators of this assassination, sick bastards.

Re:Sick bastards

[ebvwfbw]

They'll think we were the only sane ones. All the crazy sick bastards that insist on keeping very dangerous people locked in a cage their entire life like an animal. That's sick. Have a rabid dog, put it down. Have a rabid guy, put him down too.

Do it the French way

[JockTroll]

The French had it right: they had a couple of butcher knives by Madame La Guillotine, should the machine not work as advertised and only partially behead the customer. Since it's the 21st Century, just have a chainsaw ready.

Execution with a bonus

[Anonymous Coward]

The scumbag is dead AND a little bit of justice was served as well.

So he suffered a bit and knew something was wrong before his ticker gave out.

The problem is....?

Re:Execution with a bonus

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing so, what makes you any different than the guy who got murdered?

Re: Execution with a bonus

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? To start with I didn't rape and murder anyone.

We have laws for a reason. He broke them, was found guilty and was executed.

The fact that he was aware and suffered is a nice little slice of justice. I have NO sympathy for him. His acts proved that he was not worthy of any compassion.

If you bleeding heart pussies don't have the balls to support what needs to be done, why don't you volunteer to keep criminals like that under house arrest in your own homes with your own wives and daughters. If you're lucky, he'll kill you BEFORE he rapes and murders them.

Many innoncet people on death row

[Anonymous Coward]

With the advent of DNA testing many people have gotten of death row as they were innocent. How many innocent, not necessarily outstanding members of society, have we executed? Most happen to be minorities. The people yelling the loudest for death penalty are white males.

Re:Many innoncet people on death row

[ebvwfbw]

The people yelling the loudest for death penalty are white males.

Care to site any study on that? I didn't think so.

It is very important that anyone that is on a jury understand it's a trial. The defendant may be innocent. Just because you are there doesn't mean he's guilty. Just becase the defendant is an asshole like Mike Tyson was on the stand, that doesn't mean he was guilty. I don't think Mike was guilty.

8th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

not sure how giving drugs to a murderer could violate 8th Amendment.

he died. what is the problem? should've hung him at the gallows instead. why we care about how suspect dies? how about the feelings of the victims and their families? does suspect care about how they died?

they failed after being warned, but they won't pay

[Anonymous Coward]

No one gets in trouble because it is the government. They can cause real damage and no one is ever held accountable. Ever. Look at the NSA, prime example. If one of us breached national security we would be locked up and never even heard from again. But they do it and no one is even arrested. Hell, they probably got a raise. In this case someone probably got paid administrative leave. They should just do away with capital punishment all together since they have executed innocent people in the past. The system is broken and when you are dealing with peoples' lives, then you simply don't use it.

Shoot

[Boronx]

I'm not a big on the death penalty in general, but I don't see why we don't just use a firing squad. If they're worried about who'd do it, they could ask for volunteers. There'd be plenty.

Re:Americans are savages living in the 21st centur

[satan666]

Fuck you asshole.

From The Guardian:

Lockett, 38, was convicted of the killing of 19-year-old, Stephanie Neiman, in 1999. She was shot and buried alive. Lockett was also convicted of raping her friend in the violent home invasion that lead to Neiman's death.

You feel bad for this POS? You are stupid motherfucker. Fuck you.

And fuck you again.

No escapees

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not just the ultimate punishment, it is the ultimate protection for society. It should be held only for those who have killed on more than one occasion and would be likely to kill again if they ever escaped prison. Who would like some of those 4% put into a home next door?
When you bring up stats to deal with real persons, you are showing great laziness.
Each of these cases should be based on their own merits, regardless of what group they fit into.
If you are using the stats on skin color, you are saying that the judges and juries in these cases are racists. You are insulting people you have never met.
As to means, several shots of Benedryl or similar sleep agent,
then put a plasma cutter up to the ear or base of the skull and turn it on until it comes out the other side. Done in a few seconds.

Rope works well

[Anonymous Coward]

Rope is a time proven method and is very cheap.

I don't feel bad

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/death-looms-for-clayton-lockett-years-after-killing-oklahoma-teen/

Pretty tidy price to pay forcing a teenager's friends to bury her alive while snickering about it.

Good riddance. The scumbag got what he deserved.

Also pretty sure he's not in that 4% group sciencehabit is so excited about. Aside from that, the figure they got is extrapolated using "statistical methods used in medical studies". Techniques that generally negatively bias. Of course without the details it's hard to say how biased that approach would have been mathematically but reading the article it's hard to understand how they got to that figure using the logic they've admitted to driving their premise. That is exonerated inmates.

Abortion then?

[coolmoose25]

I'd like to know how many people who are advocating AGAINST capital punishment on this forum are FOR abortions including late-term and partial birth abortions. My wife, who changed her views after we got married pointed out to me that being against capital punishment was inconsistent with being for abortion. I thought about it and realized she was right. So I changed my stance. I'm now PRO Capital Punishment. But if your view is inconsistent (Against CP and For Abortion) then ask yourself this: "If I'm against a person who committed terrible crimes being executed, then why am I for allowing an innocent life to be terminated just because it isn't breathing air at the moment, but would if delivered to term or near term?"

The solution.

[emil]

The state should not have the power to sentence an individual to death, but death should be available to those who would choose it.

Our government should not kill. A maximum sentence of life in prison is all the force that it should be able to employ against any individual.

If a person sentenced to life does not wish to continue the sentence, then they should have the option to request an end to it. After suitable mental evaluation, and assuming they are resolute, they should have what they seek.

This brings morality and transparency into the process. This is the right thing to do.

Re:The solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

The state should not have the power to sentence an individual to death, but death should be available to those who would choose it.

Our government should not kill. A maximum sentence of life in prison is all the force that it should be able to employ against any individual.

If a person sentenced to life does not wish to continue the sentence, then they should have the option to request an end to it. After suitable mental evaluation, and assuming they are resolute, they should have what they seek.

This brings morality and transparency into the process. This is the right thing to do.

This is shockingly sensible, which means of course that it will never be implemented in real life.

Re:The solution.

[Krishnoid]

If a person sentenced to life does not wish to continue the sentence, then they should have the option to request an end to it.

They don't need anyone's permission to do that now -- prisoners have the means to hang or otherwise kill themselves in prison fairly universally.

Preferable Methods

[Anonymous Coward]

A Poulan Chain Saw does a wonderful job on a body.

Ha ha

FU !

How about an old fashioned hanging ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No chemicals required.. just hang em.

You've invented a time machine?

[Anonymous Coward]

How else would you give back the time someone spends in prison?

Time spent in prison is as irreplaceable as a life.

Re:You've invented a time machine?

[Anonymous Coward]

How else would you give back the time someone spends in prison?

Time spent in prison is as irreplaceable as a life.

True enough. You can't give someone back time already served. What you can do, though, is realease someone found innocent to live out the rest of their lives. You can't, on the other hand, undo an execution if the person executed is later found to be innocent.

Re:so? - hey, slashdot

[whitroth]

So, tell me why it is that you can't at least filter this crap? This *ain;t* the way slashdot was even five years ago, much less 10 or 15.

And as for this anon coward: boy, what is this? Your folks aren't reading this, so who are you trying to shock... or are you just going to point out "look what I posted" to the rest of your 15 yr old stupid buddies, who are so tough my cat would send you to the hospital, and you'd never touch him.

Or are you on something that oine of your "cool" buddies got you? You'll probably die before you're 23, having ingested something with, oh, drain cleaner.

Actually, that wouldn't be bad - it would get you out of the shallow end of the gene pool.

Go away, kid, you bother us.

                  mark

On Twitter

[ThatsNotPudding]

Caught a retweet yesterday along the lines of "As far as I know, the only Christian sect that advocates the death penalty is Southern Baptist."

"We don't care what Jesus would have done, WE WANT BLOOD!"

He made a teenage girl dig her own grave

[Anonymous Coward]

Then he shot her and buried her alive.

I have a teenage daughter. I hope it hurt like hell when his execution was botched. Let's bring him back to life and keep testing this form of execution. Over and over.

Inject him with Drano for all I care.

Fuck him.

Re:If they're having so much trouble testing drugs

[K. S. Kyosuke]

For double executions, combine with sulphur hexafluoride for harmonic effect.

poor wording

[Anonymous Coward]

generally this refers to animal testing and best information on the physiological effects on an ape.

The testing that "should" have been done would have been controlled ape euthanasae followed by autopsies.

uhh...

[SuperDre]

Just give the person some sedative and when he sleeps, just pump the bastard full of cyanide.. He won't feel a thing and it's cheap... How hard can it be... Or just use a guillotine...

Seriously?

[kurzweilfreak]

Because now we get to live in a world that's minus one piece of shit baby rapist/killer.

4% Not Guilty? The Innocence Project say 50%

[Streetlight]

IIRC, it has been posited by the Innocence Project that 50% of persons convicted using eye witness accounts are not guilty of the crime of which they were convicted. Take a look at the number of people released over the past few years after dozens of years in prison who were found not to have committed the crime that put them there. One of the problems for the many innocent folks in prison is that there aren't many people willing to put in the effort to research their situation since there's little profit in doing so. And once an innocent has been put to death it's even less likely that the case will be reconsidered. So, what's the percentage of executions done on innocent prisoners? Who knows, but it's likely much more than 4%.

why not just OD?

[markhahn]

I'm not convinced capital punishment is a sound choice, but why do they make such a big deal about it? there are opioids that would cause prompt and relatively peaceful death, not to mention extremely powerful muscle-relaxants.

Use a Vet.

[XB-70]

My veterinarian did an excellent, cheap and painless euthanasia of my dog. I don't know why we can't have Vets manage the process. They are cheap, professionally trained and experienced.

Crime and punishment...

[jbwolfe]

Not the Dostoyevsky kind but the real thing. As I've aged, I have softened on my stance on capital punishment. My moral side feels that some crimes deserve to be met with death, and my rational side see the flaws in the legal system: far too many errors, especially by "eyewitnesses", mandatory minimums, three strikes, unethical prosecutors. Between those two sides I see how many people we lock up (quite a few are innocent, some sentences don't fit the crimes), and wonder why we still have so much crime in comparison to countries less inclined to incarcerate criminals. I'm shocked at what can cost you your life in many places: drug convictions in Indonesia, blasphemy in Saudi Arabia (can't wait to visit!). Are we somehow a more "just" country because we reserve the death penalty for the most "heinous" of crimes? Is our system of justice meant to punish, deter, or both? The advent of execution by lethal injection allowed us to see it as neither cruel nor unusual. Hangings, beheadings, and firing squads are now too barbaric. But as bunny ("Platoon") says "The only worry you got is dying. And if that happens, you won't know about it anyway." Maybe the method of execution is more about the conscience of those asked to carry it out. As a means to deter crime, no one can say for sure whether a criminal has been stopped short of carrying out a crime because of a potential death sentence. It didn't stop Clayton D. Lockett, but that doesn't mean it's not a deterrent. I understand why his victim's family might support this sentence. When I add it all up, however, capital punishment is loosing its appeal (pun intended).

what was "botched"

[Anonymous Coward]

He was sentenced to death by lethal injection and is dead now because of it. Don't see any issue here...

Beyond a reasonal doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem with death penalty but on appeal it becomes beyond any doubt. This tends to extend appeals forever. This is lawyer full employment standard. So I would never vote for death penalty.

If prosecutor or police willfully hid exculpatory evidence they should be tried for attempted murder and get death penalty. This is not a game to be won by any means. They should be held to highest standards.

Change the standards for death sentences

[uncqual]

I support capital punishment but believe a higher standard of proof should be required to impose it.

Perhaps something like "Beyond all rational doubt" rather than "Beyond reasonable doubt" should be required to impose the death sentence. As well, esp. in capital cases, the jury should be instructed about particularly unreliable types of evidence (notably eyewitness identification of those not well known to the witness or in any but ideal lighting conditions) and be instructed not to rely on such evidence unless there is substantial "reliable" evidence to corroborate it.

Many guilty people would be spared the death sentence (instead subject to life imprisonment without possibility of parole) with this higher standard of proof but it would partially address the problem that you can't "undo" an innocent person being executed but, with advancements in science and delayed discovery of evidence or prosecutor misconduct, someone can be released and at least live their remaining life as a free person.

However, I believe we should provide a painless "death" option for anyone sentenced to "life without the possibility of parole" who requests it. This system should include safeguards to prevent rash decisions (such as requiring the request be made once a week for eight consecutive weeks, not considering requests made in the first year or two of incarceration, examination by a shrink or board of shrinks, and allowing the decision to be rescinded at any time but doing so would start a new two year window in which a request would not be considered). Those who are truly guilty and know they are almost certain to never be released might elect this option and it would save them pain and us money.

Bullets, Gas, Hanging, etc

[Anonymous Coward]

...whatever was wrong with the guillotine? Be quick, reliable (a modern one should be), and the gore would sate the bloodlust while preventing anyone from deluding themselves that this is anything other than killing someone.

justice was served

[Anonymous Coward]

"Clayton Lockett was tortured to death" GOOD !!!!!
he beat and tortured a young girl, fuck him. good bye you shit stain of a human.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/death-looms-for-clayton-lockett-years-after-killing-oklahoma-teen/article_e459564b-5c60-5145-a1ce-bbd17a14417b.html

Untested?

[Anonymous Coward]

Untested? Bet this make them have drug trials now. Where do I sign up? I would think this would be the mother of all drug trial paydays for volunteering!

European drug companies

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see anything to this effect in the more highly moderated comments so far, but I think the real story here isn't that they used "untested" drugs, but the reason WHY they had to use those drugs in the first place. They likely couldn't get the anesthetics that they would normally use, since various European companies who manufacture the bulk of these drugs will no longer sell them to prisons intending to use them for capital punishment.

See, for example, here and here.

The European drug companies have taken anti-capital punishment actions which are resulting in undue suffering of executed inmates while the prisons look for alternatives to the now-unavailable anesthetics. Who shares what portion of blame for what will vary depending on who you ask and what their views on capital punishment are. But, regardless of your ethical viewpoint, the European drug companies are the cause, and stories like this one are the effect, while the parties involved are still adjusting to the new drug-availability situation.

Condemned last words

[PPH]

"Shoot straight you bastards! Don't make a mess of it."

Assisted Suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely, the best option is to give the criminal a gun after sentencing, and allow them the opportunity to do something useful for society, and blow their own head off... if I was facing life imprisonment, I would like the opportunity to save society millions of wasted dollars.

If they are a pro murderers, they can do a great job on themselves...

Re:Assisted Suicide

[glenebob]

I LOVE this idea. Except, I would expand it make it a no-strings-attached option for anyone charged with any felony, maybe even any misdemeanor. Change the guilty plea to, "how do you plead, guilty, not guilty, or kill me now?" And, of course, the option should be extended to anyone currently service time. Our prisons would be nearly empty within a year.

Re:Assisted Suicide

[glenebob]

Oh, and I'm betting that we'd have so few criminals on death row after this went into effect, that we could simply abandon capital punishment altogether, ending this whole stupid ass debate for good.

Method chosen is not for the victim

[Anonymous Coward]

The method chosen for an execution is not to make it as painless as possible for the victim but its purely for the person who has to do the execution.

If it was for the victim then things like drowning would be done since apparently that is a pretty easy way to go. Its not pretty to look at or to perform.

Executions don't work no criminal fears to be executed and doesn't do his crime for that reason the only way to reduce crime is by increasing the chance of being caught.

Many studies have been done on the subject of capital punishment and harsh sentences and they pretty much all said that it doesn't work rehabilitation works better and like stated above its not a deterrent to the criminal because they don't expect to get caught

Re:Nitrogen? No, CO.

[Scot Seese]

I find it hard to believe that no one has looked into execution using Carbon Monoxide. The cost is negligible and the effect inarguable. You feel drowsy, you fall asleep, and you die.

It's so sneaky and lethal, the CDC estimates it killed > 16,000 people in the U.S. in a five year time period alone.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

It wasn't botched... the guy died...

[Anonymous Coward]

end of story... and probably with a lost less torture and pain than his victim

Really Stupid

[HiThere]

This is really stupid, given that hypooxengation is not only a painless way to die, it's reported to be actually pleasant. (This is based on old reports from Air Force pilots with defective oxygen gear. Many survived.)

Just slowly decrease the oxygen levels of the air, and they will not only die, but won't mind a bit.

Re:Really Stupid

[glenebob]

I dunno, I've deprived myself of oxygen before. Just breath in a bag for awhile. You'll go into full panic long before reaching the point of losing consciousness.

On the other hand, I've also cut the flow of blood to my brain by constricting my jugglers, and actually passed out a couple times doing it. I freaked a bunch of kids out in grade school doing it in class, actually. It's completely painless and doesn't trigger the slightest bit of panic. You can be pleasantly unconscious in 15 seconds that way. I suspect that bleeding to death is similar.

How long would it take to drain an inmate's circulatory system to the point of rapid unconsciousness? Guaranteed to kill, and no less humane than lethal injection.

Re:Really Stupid

[HiThere]

The panic is caused by CO2 buildup. Avoid that any you avoid the problem.

OTOH, I do usually favor total blood donation. That isn't painless, but should be nearly so. Romans used to favor that form of suicide if they didn't want to face pain.

Why the U.S. allows the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a proponent of the death penalty, but it remains in the U.S. because of 1) retributive justice, in the sense that a victim of a horrible crime's survivors may not receive closure until the threat has been eliminated, and 2) the deterrence factor, that criminals may be less likely to commit crimes where the penalty is death rather than life in prison. Whether these benefits outweigh the costs, or if they are actually beneficial at all, is the debatable aspect. However, simply because certain other countries do not condone the death penalty does not stand to reason why the U.S. should similarly not, without better argumentation. Many other countries do not have well-developed individual rights (e.g. gun ownership, property rights, the right to make informed medical decisions), and so differences in governmental systems can be as much of a boon as a curse.

Fallacious reasoning. Anecdote is not Data.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fallacious reasoning. Anecdote is not Data.

I am certain the death penalty has acted as a deterrent in some cases. For example kidnappings, where killing the victim would make sense if there was no or little greater penalty.

The fact that one or a few or even many are not deterred does not mean that some or many or more OTHERS are not.

Morphine or Heroin

[Anonymous Coward]

Without arguing the morality of the death penalty, it seems like a deliberate overdose of either would offer a painless death to the recipient.

That's completely faulty reasoning.

[GPS Pilot]

Given that the death penalty was in existence prior to his crime, yet the perp still did what he did, it seems that the threat of punishment was no deterrent. So if the death penalty is not a deterrent...

That's completely faulty reasoning.

Example: if, in the absense of capital punishment, 63 crimes are committed in Fooland, and in the presense of capital punishment, 50 crimes are committed in Fooland, there has been a definite deterrent effect despite the fact that 50 perps were undeterred.

Those are obviously made-up numbers, but I suspect there is some point at which the size of the deterrent effect would convince everyone to keep capital punishment on the books. For example, if you could choose between

• (a) 6000 people are murdered with no capital punishment, for a total of 6000 deaths, or
• (b) 50 people are murdered in the presence of capital punishment, 38 murderers are convicted and excecuted, 1 innocent person convicted and executed, for a total of 89 deaths

would you not choose (b)?

Medical experimentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who are convicted of acts like this one and there is no doubt of there guilt should not be executed this way. Why waste of a pefectly good medical research subject.

why not use heroin?

[kbdd]

Seems like a lot of people die from heroin overdose that is self injected. It can't be that painful if people do that to themselves. Why not use heroin overdose for lethal injections?

What is this crap?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to do it, use a BULLET..

Tried and Tested.

Well, with the White House against this

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear that the White House is mortified by this, so hopefully we will soon do this in a much more humane way: via targeted drone strikes, without trial.

What's the base rate?

[Anonymous Coward]

> A black person who kills a white person is far more likely to be prosecuted and sentenced to death than vice versa.

Those are bad statistics unless we know the base rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

Re:What's the base rate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Crime is one area we have plenty of statistics. Excluding 'other races' and 'unknown', black's are only marginally more likely to found to have committed a homicide.

Criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget, the criminals had raped and murdered, burying the victim alive. http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/us/oklahoma-botched-execution/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Re:Criminals

[glenebob]

Execution is not about revenge.

Re: Horrified

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not talking about "right" or "wrong" here. It's just that here our two cultures are so fundamentally different, despite that we share so many values in other contexts.

What do you expect?

[frank_adrian314159]

Well, it is Oklahoma we're talking about here. It's not like they ever got anything right except not being part of Texas.

We don't know the cause yet

[thejuggler]

Until an autopsy is done there is no way to know if/why a vein burst. It may or may not have anything to do with the lethal injection drugs. The rush to judgment over the drugs is simply a knee jerk reaction by those opposed to the death penalty. It's also worth asking why we have a shortage of the tested drugs. Is it not sue to the anti-death penalty groups harassing drug companies? So they created this problem because they didn't think that some other method would be tried.

Retroactive abortion

[Anonymous Coward]

Capital punishment is retroactive abortion.

Re:so? - hey, slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Grab a shampoo bottle from your bathroom. I'll wait.
 
Got it? Good. Now insert it into your ass and move it in and out at a medium pace.

wow2

[Mr_Nitro]

this thread spawn the best and brightest slashdotters indeed...... exactly when a military 'on duty' stops being a murderer in the eyes of victim's family members ? why is that alright? We totally condone murderers in so many situations, I say that the sole judge of the extent of the punishment should be the victim's closest family alone whenever it's possible.... Personally I would favor an incarceration only system.... death penalty is just some dark ages religious shit we should overcome asap....

Heroin?

[Anonymous Coward]

People OD on heroin all the time. Why is this execution business so complicated?

Someone must be making money is why.

Because they make extra sure they're guilty

[penguinoid]

All else being equal, I'd rather extra money be spent determining someone's guilt or innocence, rather than incarcerating them. If people sentenced to death by incarceration received the same scrutiny as those facing death by lethal injection, then it would cost more to put someone in jail and throw away the key than to execute them.

Tax payer burden and guilty aren't really paying t

[Anonymous Coward]

I do believe in the death penalty, and always have. I understand that there is a statistical chance of errors in trials that take place and unfortunately innocent prisoners suffer a great injustice. But let's stop for a moment and consider a few scenarios.

Sometimes the innocent are railroaded and/or the system designed to give someone a fair day in court is corrupted/flawed. In the cases of corruption it is those that corrupt the system, for what ever reason they try to justify, who should suffer the same fate as the innocent. As stated, this is about 4% of death row inmates.

But this also means that 96% of the time! the system works and the guilty are punished according to the laws of the state(s) they committed the crime in. In the case of murder, there will never likely be an even playing field, because no two people lived the exact same lives, under the exact same circumstances, nor committed the exact same crime.

This will sound cold-hearted to many of you on this forum, but as an honest, law abiding (doesn't mean I agree the laws are right) citizen, who has worked hard all my life, slowly earning and saving, it am tired of financially supporting people who CHOOSE to break the law. As a citizen, I believe in a right to a fair trial, and I believe if everything was done by the book, and the presumed guilty are found guilty, then let the punishment fit the crimes. In the case of murder, I believe it is fair to inflict the death penalty and within a max of one year from the original conviction. I don't agree with multiple appeals situation, one appeal and if still found guilty then the guilty should NOT linger on death row for years/decades. Justice is not being served, to the prisoner found to be guilty, to the victim's family, and to the tax payers. This is not about greed folks, it is about what is right and fair to those of us who CHOSE to stay out of trouble.

Finally, the prisoner found guilty of murder, should be killed in the same exact manner as the victim(s). In the case of too many different methods to choose from, choose the one that is deemed as the worst and administer that form of punishment.

For those of you who support life in prison, feel free to go ahead and pay more taxes to support your cause, put your money where your mouth is, but until then, please stop making me have to pay the financial price for someone else's poor choices.

Murderers have shown murder is not Cruel for them

[Anonymous Coward]

How can something be cruel and unusual when the person it is being used on has shown by their own actions that killing another by horrific means, isn't unusual for them? I say, douse them with gasoline and light them up and have a marshmallow roast with them supplying the heat to celebrate the world without them in it.

The guy raped and buried someone alive

[Anonymous Coward]

So who friggen cares how he died. I'd prefer that he got disemboweled while alive. Another idea I had was for these criminals becoming human lab rats to pay for their crimes. My and my wife debate this issue all the time. She's against any form of execution... Not me. There needs to be some form of deterrent. I

thanks

[tkiel]

have grreat

Botched execution?

[DrStoooopid]

He suffered less than his victim did.

F*ck you, that's why.

What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in an attempt to be humane, and not allow it's drugs to kill people, and try to influence our country's penal system.. Foreign manufacturers of the drugs that would have killed him painlessly were not available. So this suffering (which, as long as he was guilty, doesn't bother me one little bit) was actually caused by some feel-good, do-gooder liberal. Nice.

Vengeance is not justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Vengeance is not justice, if you only seek to inflict the same pain on others, why then shouldn't someone else be able to inflict the same pain on you, you're causing them the same amount of pain. Justice is making right what has been done, and making someone suffer isn't justice, as he isn't going to learn from the suffering, nor will anyone else. The death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent, which if people were rational would make sense, however there is no rational thought in most murder.

Supposed to feel sorry for the guy

[pebear]

This guy had a girl shot and thrown into a shallow grave alive and buried alive. What about the girl he had shot and buried alive. I'm all broke up over his painful heart attack. I say bring back hangings, firing squads and beheadings. These are three methods we know work and work fast without pain.

Apparently our legal system is not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with those "exhaustive" legal processes we still have a rate of about 4% of wrongful convictions on executed inmates. That means 4 out of 100 people are dying for a crime they did not commit. While I'm generally a good of the many, I'd have to say this is one of the cases where the good of the few outweighs the needs of the many, specifically because it affects everyone.

what torture?

[Anonymous Coward]

you talk as if the injection was deliberately formulated to cause pain

rere:whats the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

sentence to life or death, either way we're talking away the man's life, the least you can do is be honest about it.

Irony galore

[Anonymous Coward]

"Man dies in botched execution"

A simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

How about what vets use? Are humans somehow different?

Wait. What? LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

You think we passed a bunch of bullshit laws to trick innocent people into committing felonies as a conspiracy to keep the jails full? How then do you explain all the early release stuff where the state leans on the prison to let convicts walk to balance out the population numbers? You got it ass backwards, and i'd like to see just one example of these "railroading" felony laws forcing innocent citizens into prison to fill quotas.

You define torture oddly

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is torture than I got tortured when I broke my arm playing baseball as a kid.

Torture requires intent and deliberate action, this had neither, even if you use the version where intent is disproven rather than proven you don't have a case.
  They set out to kill the guy clean and quickly with every reason to believe this would be the case. It wasn't. Shit happens. Once they knew they had a bad batch they didn't stick the other guy and thats about all they could do. While there may be cause to look into tightening the quality control of their distributors There was no cruelty in this beyond the philosophical sort life tends to have all on its own.

Only because California doesn't actually *keep* ev

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/1400-lifers-released-from-california-prisons-in-last-3-years/

socially acceptable to some people, but that doesn

[Anonymous Coward]

its also exactly what DIDN'T happen here.

So What

[Anonymous Coward]

He buried a woman alive after raping and torturing her, so he suffered a little dying. I think he still owes for the pain and suffering he caused.

This will come next:

[The Old One 666]

"You can't use that drug cocktail on a human because they haven't been tested on a human."

Any nerds left?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I click into this article hoping to get some discussion about the medical specifics of what went wrong and how.

All I find instead is a sea of politics and name calling. Why do I even bother with this site anymore?

This whole issue is ridiculous.

[Druegan]

This whole issue is ridiculous. Look, I'm not going to get into the moral debate over capital punishment. What's ridiculous is how people can't seem to figure out how to kill someone efficiently, humanely, and without drama.

Forget all this "lethal injection" nonsense. Just go with nitrogen suffocation. It's cheap, you get drowsy, you fall asleep, and you don't wake up. End of life, end of drama. Done. Christ, you'd think this was difficult like calculating the orbit of a mars probe or something....

Spot on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. I believe that we could greatly reduce the number of executions by requiring the governor
who signs the death warrant to pull the trigger. I believe we might thus discovered that W actually
*did* have some compassion in his "conservatism."

Why did this happen?

[bartmcmurray]

Those who got the old drugs taken off the market are responsible. Now this group are now complaining about problems with the new drugs? Also who do you propose as subjects to test these drugs?

what's wrong with heroin?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's cheap, you can buy it anywhere, heck you can probably buy it from the cia, or army direct, they protect how many thousands of acres of it?

Oh yay.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've stood on both sides of this debate in my lifetime. After seeing both sides, I can only conclude that the debate is fallacious.

You can argue for or against the death penalty. Reasonable arguments exist on both sides. The problem that we are actually trying to resolve, without actually identifying, is whether or not the justice system is fair. Put bluntly, it is not.

There are open and shut cases where reputable witnesses can testify that a crime occurred. Unfortunately, far too many crimes are without irrefutable evidence. When you start jailing innocents, and turn jails into storage facilities for non-violent offenders, you have broken the idea of justice.

For a moment, consider two men. Same race, age, and approximate location. One is a bank manager, and the other is barely getting by on a minimum wage part-time job. When the later man steals a car to fence for money, he is sent to prison. When the former man steals millions of dollars to fuel a lavish lifestyle they are also sent to prison. The reasonable person says the car thief gets a much smaller sentence, because the value of the theft is smaller. People familiar with the US justice system will reject this idea, and tell you the banker goes to a white collar daycare facility, while the car thief goes to a real prison. All of this is predicated upon white collar crime being "cleaner." I don't buy it.

The same is true on death row. There are innocent people there, along with the guilty. When the day comes that an innocent is executed, then by our own rules we are murderers. Who then remains to carry out our executions? Surely not the prosecutors, who may have lied to earn a conviction. Surely not anyone who supports the death penalty. Finally, surely not anyone who believes in justice.

My tax money may go to keeping some of this scum alive, but alive and guilty is something I can live with. Dead and innocent is unacceptable, if we are ever to call ourselves true purveyors of justice.

Obligatory

[balbus000]

Chased by topless women off a cliff.

Botched?

[dhell]

I thought he died after an hour?

Too bad so sad

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happened when someone bury someone alive...it's called Karma, and I hope the hell he suffered and now he can rot in hell!

bullet is even cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's use them

Re:If they're having so much trouble testing drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Unfortunately for the torture fetishists

[jhylkema]

there's something called the Constitution. It consists of more than just the Second Amendment. And it says in no uncertain terms that "cruel and unusual punishment" is no bueno.